User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 9:47:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Honestly this decision clearly...very clearly...guts AWB and mag laws too.
I can't imagine anyone actually getting successfully prosecuted for an AW or +10 mag anywhere in the US...even in NY. Will NY arrest you and make you spend money defending yourself? Yes. But this decision makes it clear that NY laws are donezo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 9:59:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Also this...
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 10:26:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like the 7 round mag limit in your ten round magazine. https://www.guns.com/news/2014/01/02/federal-judge-rules-safe-act-seven-round-magazine-limit-tenuous-strained-unsupported-video |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 7:23:55 AM EDT
[#4]
Unsafe and others clearly violate Heller “classes of weapons” and that didn’t stop states or lower courts. It has to go to SCOTUS to stop it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 7:48:54 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like you'll still need a permit to buy and possess a pistol. I think carry permits will be shall issue. Permit applications will be accepted in person only Wednesdays between 5 and 5:15 am at the new pistol permit office in Champlain on the Canadian border. It will require 5 visits to the Champlain office. 1 to pick up an application, 1 to drop it off, 1 to be fingerprinted, 1 for your interview and lastly to pick up your permit. The permit will expire annually and will need to be renewed with the above 5 visits to the permit office. While I can see where you're going and how this could be possible, there ARE people that can and will be held account able for such egregious actions. Remember, the State works for the People and those employees ALL have a supervisor, one that must be and will be reminded of this. Whenever we allow someone to exceed their authority, to treat anyone with contempt or malice the standard is lowered to that level for everyone; this will not do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 9:33:27 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would hazard that most county judges would accept requests for removal of the restrictions and grant the unrestricted if you applied right now. They do not need more guidance than the SC ruling. If you wait then you get the chance of dealing with whatever hurdles and the NYC cabal create. If you have a restricted permit I would apply immediately to remove them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If you have a restricted "carry" permit...yes. You can now carry. That's what this decision is saying...but I'm no lawyer. So... Quoted: I know it's going to take a lawsuit to confirm but do we think this means upstate permits are valid in New York City? Quoted: So be me. No pistol permit. What does this change for when I do apply now? Nothing, Target/Hunting/Sportsman will still probably be available. Full carry will have additional requirements, unless they give in and just upgrade everyone. I would hazard that most county judges would accept requests for removal of the restrictions and grant the unrestricted if you applied right now. They do not need more guidance than the SC ruling. If you wait then you get the chance of dealing with whatever hurdles and the NYC cabal create. If you have a restricted permit I would apply immediately to remove them. There is currently no change to how pistol permits are handled on the county level. Still have to take the advanced course and apply for an unrestricted permit. That may change in a couple months, but as of this morning I was told it’s the same process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 10:12:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unsafe and others clearly violate Heller "classes of weapons" and that didn't stop states or lower courts. It has to go to SCOTUS to stop it. This current ruling is MUCH clearer as to what the lower courts are supposed to do as compared to Heller. I am sure there will be many courts that will look for loopholes and other workarounds to find various restrictions and bans constitutional at their peril (the twisted nonsense the 1st Circuit came up with in Workman v Healy to uphold Massachusetts AWB and the quip that Justice Scalia would be proud of their twisted logic is over I think). But there is now very explicit documentation on how the lower courts are to behave and and a warning that SCOTUS is not in the mood to see the 2nd Amendment go back to 2nd class status. Of course a future SCOTUS, when the majority flips the other way, may very well undo all of this but for the time being we work with what we have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 12:46:51 PM EDT
[#8]
I'm not a New Yorker, but I finally visited NYC last year. I just wanted to drop by and congratulate you guys on a huge win. Enjoy and exercise your freedom! I can't imagine the scramble of applications that are about to be submitted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 1:57:34 PM EDT
[#9]
How does this effect the Sullivan Act?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 2:38:45 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does this effect the Sullivan Act? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 3:07:51 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not a New Yorker, but I finally visited NYC last year. I just wanted to drop by and congratulate you guys on a huge win. Enjoy and exercise your freedom! I can't imagine the scramble of applications that are about to be submitted 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 5:55:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not a New Yorker, but I finally visited NYC last year.  When it is there all the time, the thrill is not the same IMHO. As a kid in the late 60's/early 70's, I went in quite often with my grandfather see the city, ride the subway and ferry. Also the museums. Went to Ellis Island right after it opened (and was a wreck) in the summer of 1975. What I cannot repeat was my grandfather pointing out the various rooms he had been in and various things that happened as he was processed through after arriving from Germany.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 7:16:29 PM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 9:47:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am about 9 miles east of the NYC line and have not been in for several years When it is there all the time, the thrill is not the same IMHO. As a kid in the late 60's/early 70's, I went in quite often with my grandfather see the city, ride the subway and ferry. Also the museums. Went to Ellis Island right after it opened (and was a wreck) in the summer of 1975. What I cannot repeat was my grandfather pointing out the various rooms he had been in and various things that happened as he was processed through after arriving from Germany.I have some German heritage as well and have always wondered when they came around. For all of my life I had vowed to never set foot nor knowingly spend money in either New York or California. My stepson graduated college and ended up working in NJ. I passed on my wife's first visit trip there a few years ago. The wife was going up to see him again and I decided I'd go and attempt to see past my disdain for the politics and policies there. I will admit, NYC smelled exactly like I always imagined it, like dumpster in an alley, but I did enjoy it. It was significantly hotter than I imagined it though. I was wondering what this ruling could mean for reciprocity in NY, and everywhere else for that matter. It seems that if they can't deprive their own citizenry of the right to bear, how can they deprive other law-abiding US citizens their right to bear? This may be much bigger than any of us comprehend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2022 4:56:32 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was wondering what this ruling could mean for reciprocity in NY, and everywhere else for that matter. If you look at reciprocity as it is right now, NO STATE will agree to reciprocity with NY. If we change how we vote (Mainly NY City/Albany/Rochester/Binghamton/Buffalo) that may change in the future. Doubtful, but it is possible, however remote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 7:25:39 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I will admit, NYC smelled exactly like I always imagined it, like dumpster in an alley, but I did enjoy it. It was significantly hotter than I imagined it though.  I never really thought anything of it back then and I never realized how smelly cars were before emissions were tightened and catalytic converters required (I notice it now when a classic pre-1980's car goes by now). Of course the "dumpster in an alley" smell is still spot on 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 8:35:00 AM EDT
[#17]
I am predicting that the unsafe act will be gone shortly. Now, what about suppressors and SBRs? The Decision said that no bearable arms can be banned. At the end of this process NYS will be forced to return to America.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 8:57:07 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am predicting that the unsafe act will be gone shortly. Now, what about suppressors and SBRs? The Decision said that no bearable arms can be banned. At the end of this process NYS will be forced to return to America. It is going to take multiple lawsuits and a lot of money to get rid of the safe act. Heck, even with the supreme court's decision I think it's going to be difficult to get full carry permits for the entire state. I understand some counties are doing the right thing but the downstate counties won't give up without a fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 9:03:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think most of us will humbly disagree. It is going to take multiple lawsuits and a lot of money to get rid of the safe act. Heck, even with the supreme court's decision I think it's going to be difficult to get full carry permits for the entire state. I understand some counties are doing the right thing but the downstate counties won't give up without a fight. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am predicting that the unsafe act will be gone shortly. Now, what about suppressors and SBRs? The Decision said that no bearable arms can be banned. At the end of this process NYS will be forced to return to America. It is going to take multiple lawsuits and a lot of money to get rid of the safe act. Heck, even with the supreme court's decision I think it's going to be difficult to get full carry permits for the entire state. I understand some counties are doing the right thing but the downstate counties won't give up without a fight. Well...I think a lot of us can at least breath easier knowing this decision is very clear. AWB and mag laws are a no go. SAFE is toast even if NY doesn't repeal it. Hell even if a lawsuit doesn't toss it, if anyone gets pinched (and the DA actually wants to risk a lawsuit), the courts hands are tied with this strong of a decision.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 11:49:10 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am predicting that the unsafe act will be gone shortly. Now, what about suppressors and SBRs? The Decision said that no bearable arms can be banned. At the end of this process NYS will be forced to return to America. I doubt it - SCOTUS probably won't touch another gun case for 10-20 years. Plus, Kavanaugh is just like Judas Roberts (& Kennedy, who hand picked his replacement) - he's going to keep moving left with his "reasonable restrictions" bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 11:52:05 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I doubt it - SCOTUS probably won't touch another gun case for 10-20 years. Plus, Kavanaugh is just like Judas Roberts (& Kennedy, who hand picked his replacement) - he's going to keep moving left with his "reasonable restrictions" bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am predicting that the unsafe act will be gone shortly. Now, what about suppressors and SBRs? The Decision said that no bearable arms can be banned. At the end of this process NYS will be forced to return to America. I doubt it - SCOTUS probably won't touch another gun case for 10-20 years. Plus, Kavanaugh is just like Judas Roberts (& Kennedy, who hand picked his replacement) - he's going to keep moving left with his "reasonable restrictions" bullshit. But SAFE doesn't need to go to scotus now. The lower courts literally have ZERO wiggle room anymore. The new standard of review is a total gut punch to gun laws. Their hands are tied with this strong of a decision. I guarantee they will say as much in their decisions too. "We don't agree with the supreme court nazis, but our hands are tied." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 11:52:19 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think most of us will humbly disagree. It is going to take multiple lawsuits and a lot of money to get rid of the safe act. Heck, even with the supreme court's decision I think it's going to be difficult to get full carry permits for the entire state. I understand some counties are doing the right thing but the downstate counties won't give up without a fight. Suffolk & Nassau already issue permits - they just drag it out forever instead of processing them immediately. This decision clearly states that the "sportsman/target" is unconstitutional, so those permits are full carry now - they're going to have to admit it soon. The armed guard restriction will probably remain - you have to be trained to work armed. The retired PD will also remain, although it is redundant with 18USC926(c) being the law of the land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 11:54:56 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But SAFE doesn't need to go to scotus now. The lower courts literally have ZERO wiggle room anymore. The new standard of review is a total gut punch to gun laws. Their hands are tied with this strong of a decision. I guarantee they will say as much in their decisions too. "We don't agree with the supreme court nazis, but our hands are tied." The lower courts will say that this decision did not directly address SAFE as that wasn't before them. Then they will stand on the Kavanaugh concurring brief were he says you can have some restrictions. SCOTUS is not going to want to touch it - and Kavanaugh/Roberts still cannot be trusted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 12:05:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Can't stand on kavanaugh's opinion it holds no weight
And again this decision sets a new standard of review for ALL gun cases. No question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 12:08:07 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can't stand on kavanaugh's opinion it holds no weight And again this decision sets a new standard of review for ALL gun cases. No question. Lifetime appointment judges routinely ignore SCOTUS rulings & do what they want because there is no punishment... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 12:09:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can't stand on kavanaugh's opinion it holds no weight And again this decision sets a new standard of review for ALL gun cases. No question. I completely agree with Dave. That is what the real win is. All lower courts MUST apply this new standard. This case was not meant to finish off gun control. Thomas wanted to set the standard for the lower courts to finish off gun control one case at a time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 12:20:47 PM EDT
[#27]
And I guarantee / agree that NY and liberal states will make tons of new laws and bullshit to try and prevent what's coming...but it's coming.
And I do rest easier knowing that this decision was so clear, it's basically an affirmative defense against whatever NY may want to jam you up for. Not a felon? None of the true strict gun laws apply. Sorry Hochul. Did you guys see Hochul live when she got the announcement? I'm sure she was expecting heightened intermediate or some form of strict scrutiny that they could weasle their way out of. But she read live on the air that now NY must make all their gun laws comply with text history and tradition...I guarantee she didn't know what that meant a while ago, but I'm sure her legal team explained it to her as a very remote possibility (and that it would be the worst case scenario)...so she knew the ramifications when reading the note she was passed while live on TV. And it looked like someone pissed in her Cheerios. It was glorious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 12:50:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And I guarantee / agree that NY and liberal states will make tons of new laws and bullshit to try and prevent what's coming...but it's coming. And I do rest easier knowing that this decision was so clear, it's basically an affirmative defense against whatever NY may want to jam you up for. Not a felon? None of the true strict gun laws apply. Sorry Hochul. Did you guys see Hochul live when she got the announcement? I'm sure she was expecting heightened intermediate or some form of strict scrutiny that they could weasle their way out of. But she read live on the air that now NY must make all their gun laws comply with text history and tradition...I guarantee she didn't know what that meant a while ago, but I'm sure her legal team explained it to her as a very remote possibility (and that it would be the worst case scenario)...so she knew the ramifications when reading the note she was passed while live on TV. And it looked like someone pissed in her Cheerios. It was glorious. Saw that! Indeed, glorious! If she hung around a few more minutes, her head would have exploded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 1:40:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Saw that! Indeed, glorious! If she hung around a few more minutes, her head would have exploded. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And I guarantee / agree that NY and liberal states will make tons of new laws and bullshit to try and prevent what's coming...but it's coming. And I do rest easier knowing that this decision was so clear, it's basically an affirmative defense against whatever NY may want to jam you up for. Not a felon? None of the true strict gun laws apply. Sorry Hochul. Did you guys see Hochul live when she got the announcement? I'm sure she was expecting heightened intermediate or some form of strict scrutiny that they could weasle their way out of. But she read live on the air that now NY must make all their gun laws comply with text history and tradition...I guarantee she didn't know what that meant a while ago, but I'm sure her legal team explained it to her as a very remote possibility (and that it would be the worst case scenario)...so she knew the ramifications when reading the note she was passed while live on TV. And it looked like someone pissed in her Cheerios. It was glorious. Saw that! Indeed, glorious! If she hung around a few more minutes, her head would have exploded. You could tell when she was stuttering and stammering about restricted carry in NYC that her pre prepped notes were in no way close to what the ruling ended up being. The going back to muskets line was her head melting down trying to process what just happened. It was glorious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 1:50:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You could tell when she was stuttering and stammering about restricted carry in NYC that her pre prepped notes were in no way close to what the ruling ended up being. The going back to muskets line was her head melting down trying to process what just happened. It was glorious. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: And I guarantee / agree that NY and liberal states will make tons of new laws and bullshit to try and prevent what's coming...but it's coming. And I do rest easier knowing that this decision was so clear, it's basically an affirmative defense against whatever NY may want to jam you up for. Not a felon? None of the true strict gun laws apply. Sorry Hochul. Did you guys see Hochul live when she got the announcement? I'm sure she was expecting heightened intermediate or some form of strict scrutiny that they could weasle their way out of. But she read live on the air that now NY must make all their gun laws comply with text history and tradition...I guarantee she didn't know what that meant a while ago, but I'm sure her legal team explained it to her as a very remote possibility (and that it would be the worst case scenario)...so she knew the ramifications when reading the note she was passed while live on TV. And it looked like someone pissed in her Cheerios. It was glorious. Saw that! Indeed, glorious! If she hung around a few more minutes, her head would have exploded. You could tell when she was stuttering and stammering about restricted carry in NYC that her pre prepped notes were in no way close to what the ruling ended up being. The going back to muskets line was her head melting down trying to process what just happened. It was glorious. Yeah that muskets line was her misinterpreting "text history and tradition" She thinks it can be interpreted as going back to what it was like in 1791... But Thomas addresses that by saying "1st amendment covers radio TV internet etc." And that argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 2:40:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am predicting that the unsafe act will be gone shortly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 3:00:20 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As others have noted, I doubt it. However, it does create a bit of a quandary for the state. The old saying "you may beat that rap, but you won't beat the ride" applies. They will certainly continue to arrest people for SAFE Act violations but each one of those arrests is a potential court case for getting the SAFE Act ruled unconstitutional. DA's will need to think long and hard about prosecuting such cases going forward. I can see various deals being made going forward: "we won't press charges if you surrender your weapons/magazines" or "we dispose of all charges in six months if you keep your nose clean", etc. As long as the ambiguity is in place, the state can enjoy having a majority of voluntary compliance with act without fearing a potential loss. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am predicting that the unsafe act will be gone shortly. Well they can fuck right off then. I'll take the long road of beating them in court and suing after I win. They do NOT want any AWB or mag arrests going to trial after this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 11:10:09 PM EDT
[#33]
AWB case in MD will soon be decided. There is no wiggle room for the courts anymore. AWB will be ruled unconstitutional. Unsafe is next. It's inevitable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 9:07:54 AM EDT
[#34]
To be fair, fixed magazines are utterly fucking dangerous with regards to clearing malfunctions. Safe act can't go away soon enough.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 11:30:13 AM EDT
[#35]
I mean not just SAFE needs to go away...but the original 1994 AWB too. It's also inevitable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 11:38:41 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unsafe and others clearly violate Heller “classes of weapons” and that didn’t stop states or lower courts. It has to go to SCOTUS to stop it. SCOTUS have a new, clear level of scrutiny to lower courts to apply. It should not have to go to SCOTUS |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 11:59:08 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SCOTUS have a new, clear level of scrutiny to lower courts to apply. It should not have to go to SCOTUS You severely underestimate the mental gymnastics anti gun lower courts will go to in order to avoid striking down gun control laws they approve of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 12:02:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is currently no change to how pistol permits are handled on the county level. Still have to take the advanced course and apply for an unrestricted permit. That may change in a couple months, but as of this morning I was told it's the same process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 12:38:03 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I mean not just SAFE needs to go away...but the original 1994 AWB too. It's also inevitable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 1:00:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Westchester County Pistol Permit section has a message on their machine. They are saying that they are awaiting guidance from the State Police and the licensing officers (judges). They have no other guidance at this time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 6:46:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Westchester County Pistol Permit section has a message on their machine. They are saying that they are awaiting guidance from the State Police and the licensing officers (judges). They have no other guidance at this time. Schenectady county is the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 6:36:50 AM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 9:54:36 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great letter to California https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6.27.2022-Ltr-to-CA-AG-Bonta-re-NY-State-Rifle-Pistol-v-Bruen.pdf None of the "May Issue" states are going to give an inch more than they have to until explicitly told to by a court on each and every point. It will be interesting to see what mental gymnastics the New York State Legislature comes up with this Thursday when then rewrite the Sullivan Law. I foresee yet another year or two of litigation coming up before they come up with yet another delaying tactic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 10:28:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Indeed it is and I suspect California will disregard it, and will be the next state dragged into court to be challenged on the points brought up in the letter. But that will take time and unless the 9th Circus is willing to issue an injunction on enforcement, California will get at least a year or two of additional restrictions until they are told otherwise. None of the "May Issue" states are going to give an inch more than they have to until explicitly told to by a court on each and every point. It will be interesting to see what mental gymnastics the New York State Legislature comes up with this Thursday when then rewrite the Sullivan Law. I foresee yet another year or two of litigation coming up before they come up with yet another delaying tactic. They apparently subscribe to the "wack a mole" method of legislating. Keep throwing new more onerous laws on the books when an old one is found unconstitutional in the hopes that plaintiffs will give up, run out of money, die or move. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 10:56:26 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great letter to California https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6.27.2022-Ltr-to-CA-AG-Bonta-re-NY-State-Rifle-Pistol-v-Bruen.pdf Very interesting legal challenge to CA. Unfortunately, NY has put nothing in writing that I have seen yet to have a similar letter sent to them! We are on a huge battle field against those looking to infringe, hinder or outright deny our rights that seem to be spelled out quite clearly in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Bill |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 11:57:38 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very interesting legal challenge to CA. Unfortunately, NY has put nothing in writing that I have seen yet to have a similar letter sent to them! We are on a huge battle field against those looking to infringe, hinder or outright deny our rights that seem to be spelled out quite clearly in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Bill |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 12:14:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Very interesting legal challenge to CA. Unfortunately, NY has put nothing in writing that I have seen yet to have a similar letter sent to them! We are on a huge battle field against those looking to infringe, hinder or outright deny our rights that seem to be spelled out quite clearly in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Bill Nothing in writing that we know of, yeah, but Hochul has certainly been running her mouth off about their intentions. GOP Primary today, vote Zeldin, people, and then again in November. I wonder how/if we could use the racism of gun control to shift the 5-boro attitude away from the typical democrat demographic. Would be nice to see a real change in NY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 2:46:38 PM EDT
[#48]
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 4:22:33 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryI need a cigarette. That was awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 5:15:34 PM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
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.
