User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 9:47:31 AM EDT
[#1]
It hasn't passed yet, and probably won't, but seems like it only applies to the purchase transaction?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 10:37:52 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It hasn't passed yet, and probably won't, but seems like it only applies to the purchase transaction? "persons who were licensed to possess a pistol or revolver prior to [the effective date of this paragraph] July first, two thousand twenty-two are not required to have completed a firearms safety course and test, provided, however, persons with a license issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section prior to [the effective date of the laws of two thousand twenty-two which amended this paragraph] July first, two thousand twenty-two shall be required to complete the training required by subdivision nineteen of this section prior to the recertification of such license; and (iii) persons applying for a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section on or after [the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand twenty-two which amended this paragraph] July first, two thousand twenty-two who shall be required to complete the training" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 10:45:12 AM EDT
[#3]
"New York is one of six states whose constitution does not explicitly protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Fortunately the U.S. Constitution does. "Being a "May Issue" policy state, the issuance of a firearm is at the discretion of the issuing officer." Not after NYSRP v. Bruen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 11:03:55 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is the part I was speaking about "persons who were licensed to possess a pistol or revolver prior to [the effective date of this paragraph] July first, two thousand twenty-two are not required to have completed a firearms safety course and test, provided, however, persons with a license issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section prior to [the effective date of the laws of two thousand twenty-two which amended this paragraph] July first, two thousand twenty-two shall be required to complete the training required by subdivision nineteen of this section prior to the recertification of such license; and (iii) persons applying for a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section on or after [the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand twenty-two which amended this paragraph] July first, two thousand twenty-two who shall be required to complete the training" You're exempt from training that you already have to take for the pistol license. This bill could be shortened to 'fuck guns'. Interesting new sleaze to require a very onerous license with multiple types of background checks to purchase a rifle or shotgun while pretending it's a hunting license. I doubt this passes now but I bet it does if we win a couple in court. I don't know why anybody is optimistic, NY is only ever going to further restrict 2A rights, NEVER respect them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 11:09:02 AM EDT
[#5]
The other semi-humorous sleaze they throw in:
Must be 21 to buy a gun. Exception for those who have an honorable discharge from the military. Before they're 21! I know it can happen but it's a small group. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 12:50:11 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "New York is one of six states whose constitution does not explicitly protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Fortunately the U.S. Constitution does. "Being a "May Issue" policy state, the issuance of a firearm is at the discretion of the issuing officer." Not after NYSRP v. Bruen. It's as if they don't even acknowledge that Bruen been exist |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 1:47:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's as if they don't even acknowledge that Bruen been exist The state is literally completely disregarding the Supreme Court's ruling and isn't afraid of not hiding it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 2:25:10 PM EDT
[#8]
I just called the legislative director.
She was not even slightly aware of the Bruen decision and had no idea the supreme court affirmed that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to own a gun...or that they made NY shall issue. So they are just blissfully ignorant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 2:56:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just called the legislative director. She was not even slightly aware of the Bruen decision and had no idea the supreme court affirmed that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to own a gun...or that they made NY shall issue. So they are just blissfully ignorant. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 3:04:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just called the legislative director. She was not even slightly aware of the Bruen decision and had no idea the supreme court affirmed that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to own a gun...or that they made NY shall issue. So they are just blissfully ignorant. That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 3:50:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Commies know & understand exactly what they are doing! I can here it now bbbbbbbuut its totally constitutional to put all racisssss white people in reeducation/Extermination camps because they are racissssssssssss! Its coming! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 4:08:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just called the legislative director. She was not even slightly aware of the Bruen decision and had no idea the supreme court affirmed that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to own a gun...or that they made NY shall issue. So they are just blissfully ignorant. Astounding |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 4:18:07 PM EDT
[#13]
Yeah I mean unless SCOTUS unleashes hell on NY and sets up a special oversight of some kind to prevent NY from passing more and more laws ignoring Bruen...NY democrats ain't gonna stop.
One gets struck...they pass another. And another. We need SCOTUS to intervene like they did with segregation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2023 7:21:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "New York is one of six states whose constitution does not explicitly protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms." But they got it in Civil Rights Law Article 2 - NY Civil Rights Law S 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 1:56:02 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I mean unless SCOTUS unleashes hell on NY and sets up a special oversight of some kind to prevent NY from passing more and more laws ignoring Bruen...NY democrats ain't gonna stop. One gets struck...they pass another. And another. We need SCOTUS to intervene like they did with segregation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2023 9:19:03 PM EDT
[#16]
Social media accounts: cos that's not a 1A violation of course
 ... your rights will be determined on whether or not they like what you post?That shit needs to go away. In the meantime never use your real name for social media. If you do (like on FB) lock it up tight so that no one can see anything you don't want them to see. Or just don't post anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2023 8:01:42 AM EDT
[#17]
I wish there were similar requirements to run for political office.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2023 12:23:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That bill was initially filed in 2019 before the Bruen decision but its funny how there is a little part in the bill claiming how it was read over twice. So I doubt they actually forgot about that being worded in there. The state is literally completely disregarding the Supreme Court's ruling and isn't afraid of not hiding it. The "privilege" issue was settled in Heller and McDonald but they still focus on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2023 2:32:59 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you do (like on FB) lock it up tight so that no one can see anything you don't want them to see. Until Facebook gives it to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2023 2:37:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Until Facebook gives it to them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you do (like on FB) lock it up tight so that no one can see anything you don't want them to see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2023 7:43:52 PM EDT
[#21]
Meh.
Nassau county and the republican executive are way ahead of em. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2023 9:24:02 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh. Nassau county and the republican executive are way ahead of em. I still remember back in 2000 when the Republican Legislature and Republican County Executive Tom Gullota pushed through the license fee increase to $200 every five years. Local gun shop was telling me I should apply for one before the fee officially kicked in (they would have helped me with the paperwork). Of course I would have had to pay $200 in 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, etc. The "R" party talks a good game but as we have seen at every level of government, they fold faster than Superman on laundry day (thanks Bart Simpson) when it comes to the 2A. Yes they are usually better than Democrats but at times it seems like a choice of "who was better to live under? Mao, Fidel, Stalin or Hitler?". Their caving in last summer on gun control has turned into a big selling point for the gun control movement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2023 10:00:56 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I mean unless SCOTUS unleashes hell on NY and sets up a special oversight of some kind to prevent NY from passing more and more laws ignoring Bruen...NY democrats ain't gonna stop. One gets struck...they pass another. And another. We need SCOTUS to intervene like they did with segregation. Does SCOTUS have any capability to do such a thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2023 12:42:49 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I mean unless SCOTUS unleashes hell on NY and sets up a special oversight of some kind to prevent NY from passing more and more laws ignoring Bruen...NY democrats ain't gonna stop. One gets struck...they pass another. And another. We need SCOTUS to intervene like they did with segregation. Yep. The ink wasn’t dry on Bruen and they created a series of laws and regulations to circumvent it and the spirit of that decision. Could NY financially survive if every law abiding gun owner left? I would love to find out - I did my share leaving 7 years ago. Unless you have a loved one terminally Ill and you need to care for him, I know of no other legitimate reason for a gun owner to stay in NY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2023 6:20:55 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does SCOTUS have any capability to do such a thing? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah I mean unless SCOTUS unleashes hell on NY and sets up a special oversight of some kind to prevent NY from passing more and more laws ignoring Bruen...NY democrats ain't gonna stop. One gets struck...they pass another. And another. We need SCOTUS to intervene like they did with segregation. Does SCOTUS have any capability to do such a thing? SCOTUS didn't intervene in the Little Rock decision. The executive branch sent in federal troops to enforce the decision. SCOTUS has no power outside of contempt of court or disbarment proceedings to enforce any ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2023 7:31:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SCOTUS didn't intervene in the Little Rock decision. The executive branch sent in federal troops to enforce the decision. SCOTUS has no power outside of contempt of court or disbarment proceedings to enforce any ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2023 11:36:47 AM EDT
[#27]
Suck my dick
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2023 11:42:02 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SCOTUS didn't intervene in the Little Rock decision. The executive branch sent in federal troops to enforce the decision. SCOTUS has no power outside of contempt of court or disbarment proceedings to enforce any ruling. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah I mean unless SCOTUS unleashes hell on NY and sets up a special oversight of some kind to prevent NY from passing more and more laws ignoring Bruen...NY democrats ain't gonna stop. One gets struck...they pass another. And another. We need SCOTUS to intervene like they did with segregation. Does SCOTUS have any capability to do such a thing? SCOTUS didn't intervene in the Little Rock decision. The executive branch sent in federal troops to enforce the decision. SCOTUS has no power outside of contempt of court or disbarment proceedings to enforce any ruling. Contempt of court is pretty powerful when it involves the ability to incarcerate somebody. They can also, and should, issue an explicit ruling on the second so that those who legislate and enforce in opposition to a constitutional right can be charged with 1983 civil rights violations. when they fear losing their pensions and personal investments in a civil lawsuit they might think twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2023 1:00:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Contempt of court is pretty powerful when it involves the ability to incarcerate somebody. They can also, and should, issue an explicit ruling on the second so that those who legislate and enforce in opposition to a constitutional right can be charged with 1983 civil rights violations. when they fear losing their pensions and personal investments in a civil lawsuit they might think twice. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah I mean unless SCOTUS unleashes hell on NY and sets up a special oversight of some kind to prevent NY from passing more and more laws ignoring Bruen...NY democrats ain't gonna stop. One gets struck...they pass another. And another. We need SCOTUS to intervene like they did with segregation. Does SCOTUS have any capability to do such a thing? SCOTUS didn't intervene in the Little Rock decision. The executive branch sent in federal troops to enforce the decision. SCOTUS has no power outside of contempt of court or disbarment proceedings to enforce any ruling. Contempt of court is pretty powerful when it involves the ability to incarcerate somebody. They can also, and should, issue an explicit ruling on the second so that those who legislate and enforce in opposition to a constitutional right can be charged with 1983 civil rights violations. when they fear losing their pensions and personal investments in a civil lawsuit they might think twice. Yeah if Hochul or an LEO org enforces a law SCOTUS deemed unconstitutional, I'd hope contempt of court would be happening. Perp walk Hochul! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 5:00:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Contempt of court is pretty powerful when it involves the ability to incarcerate somebody. They can also, and should, issue an explicit ruling on the second so that those who legislate and enforce in opposition to a constitutional right can be charged with 1983 civil rights violations. when they fear losing their pensions and personal investments in a civil lawsuit they might think twice. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah I mean unless SCOTUS unleashes hell on NY and sets up a special oversight of some kind to prevent NY from passing more and more laws ignoring Bruen...NY democrats ain't gonna stop. One gets struck...they pass another. And another. We need SCOTUS to intervene like they did with segregation. Does SCOTUS have any capability to do such a thing? SCOTUS didn't intervene in the Little Rock decision. The executive branch sent in federal troops to enforce the decision. SCOTUS has no power outside of contempt of court or disbarment proceedings to enforce any ruling. Contempt of court is pretty powerful when it involves the ability to incarcerate somebody. They can also, and should, issue an explicit ruling on the second so that those who legislate and enforce in opposition to a constitutional right can be charged with 1983 civil rights violations. when they fear losing their pensions and personal investments in a civil lawsuit they might think twice. Until the executive branch sends in the federal marshals, states like NY will continue to pass laws they KNOW don't pass constitutional muster. I've been to several rallies protesting the same 'safe storage' laws that Heller\McDonald found unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 7:51:22 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Until the executive branch sends in the federal marshals, states like NY will continue to pass laws they KNOW don't pass constitutional muster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2023 6:22:19 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It hasn't passed yet, and probably won't, but seems like it only applies to the purchase transaction? For now, maybe but they will be back at some point in the future to "improve" it. I moved to AZ but still have brothers in NYS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2023 3:46:56 PM EDT
[#33]
That's the problem, it takes five years to get the Supreme Court to do anything but NY can pass new restrictions every day
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2023 7:47:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the problem, it takes five years to get the Supreme Court to do anything but NY can pass new restrictions every day |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
