Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Page / 3
Link Posted: 6/23/2022 9:47:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99] [#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.

Link 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.
Link Posted: 6/23/2022 10:26:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SteelonSteel:

Like the 7 round mag limit in your ten round magazine.  
View Quote


https://www.guns.com/news/2014/01/02/federal-judge-rules-safe-act-seven-round-magazine-limit-tenuous-strained-unsupported-video
Link 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.
Link Posted: 6/24/2022 7:48:54 AM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By secamp32:
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.
View Quote

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.
Link Posted: 6/24/2022 9:33:27 AM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SteelonSteel:


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.  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SteelonSteel:
Originally Posted By emsjeep:


Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:


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...
No, not necessarily.  You "applied for" a permit with restrictions, and that is what you got.  There is nothing technically wrong with them saying if you want Target/Hunting, the process stays the same, if you want Full Carry, there is now a legitimate pathway, but you have to go to several expensive classes, including live fire, and get other "reasonable things."  All this does is prevent them from saying "self defense is not proper cause to issue a full carry."  That said, the restrictions themselves rely on the concept of proper cause for this or that, ie. you've shown proper cause for target, proper cause for hunting/hiking/sports, so that is the permit you get - if the concept of proper cause is fully defunct, perhaps we just revert to the penal law that says "to have and to carry concealed" - unclear how the state will view it and try to enforce it and ultimately you don't want to be in a position where they are claiming that your license is invalid for some reason, even if it's contrary to the ruling.

Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
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?
Possibly.  Wouldn't do it until more guidance comes out.
Originally Posted By Freebeer:
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.  
Link Posted: 6/24/2022 10:12:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Abom:
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.
View Quote
The big problem with Heller was that it never clearly defined exactly what level scrutiny to use nor give any guidance to the lower courts. They went about their merry way using Intermediate Scrutiny and the now void "Two-Step" process (I loved Thomas's quote "One step too many").

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.
Link 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
Link Posted: 6/24/2022 1:57:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: GaussGun223] [#9]
How does this effect the Sullivan Act?
Link Posted: 6/24/2022 2:38:45 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GaussGun223:
How does this effect the Sullivan Act?
View Quote
Pretty much leaves it intact at the moment. "May issue" is off the table but you still have to jump through all the hoops necessary to get a license. Further litigation may change that as the opinion leaves the door open to challenges to various schemes meant to make getting "permission" to exercise your right difficult. I would say the Sullivan Law and all its hoops would qualify. Plus they are expected to make it even more difficult next week.
Link Posted: 6/24/2022 3:07:51 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By evlblkwpnz:
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
View Quote



Link Posted: 6/24/2022 5:55:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By evlblkwpnz:
I'm not a New Yorker, but I finally visited NYC last year.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 6/24/2022 7:16:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Link Posted: 6/24/2022 9:47:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aardvark:
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.
View Quote

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.
Link Posted: 6/25/2022 4:56:32 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By evlblkwpnz:

I was wondering what this ruling could mean for reciprocity in NY, and everywhere else for that matter.
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 7:25:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Aardvark] [#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By evlblkwpnz:
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.
View Quote
I have to say the New York City smells a heck of a lot better than it did before the Clean Air Act really started making a dent in the late 1970's. I recall often staying with my grandparents in Queens at times during the summer in the late 60's/early 70's and literally being able to see the air the smog was so thick and smelly. If you ever see the opening credits of the first season of Barney Miller, that view of Manhattan in the smog is exactly how I remembered it back then:



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
Link 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.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 8:57:07 AM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By batjka104:
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.
View Quote
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.


Link Posted: 6/26/2022 9:03:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99] [#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fighter443:
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.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fighter443:
Originally Posted By batjka104:
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 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.




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.


Link Posted: 6/26/2022 11:49:10 AM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By batjka104:
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.
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 11:52:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99] [#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By shocktrp:


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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
Originally Posted By batjka104:
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."
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 11:52:19 AM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fighter443:
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.


View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 11:54:56 AM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:


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."
View Quote


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.
Link 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.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 12:08:07 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
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.
View Quote


Lifetime appointment judges routinely ignore SCOTUS rulings & do what they want because there is no punishment...
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 12:09:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
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.
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 12:20:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99] [#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.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 12:50:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
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.
View Quote


Saw that!  Indeed, glorious!  If she hung around a few more minutes, her head would have exploded.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 1:40:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JPNY23:


Saw that!  Indeed, glorious!  If she hung around a few more minutes, her head would have exploded.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JPNY23:
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
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.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 1:50:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99] [#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BenC:


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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BenC:
Originally Posted By JPNY23:
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
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.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 2:40:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By batjka104:
I am predicting that the unsafe act will be gone shortly.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 6/26/2022 3:00:20 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aardvark:
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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aardvark:
Originally Posted By batjka104:
I am predicting that the unsafe act will be gone shortly.
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.


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.
Link 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.
Link 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.
Link 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.
Link Posted: 6/27/2022 11:38:41 AM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Abom:
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.
View Quote


SCOTUS have a new, clear level of scrutiny to lower courts to apply. It should not have to go to SCOTUS
Link Posted: 6/27/2022 11:59:08 AM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Castillo:


SCOTUS have a new, clear level of scrutiny to lower courts to apply. It should not have to go to SCOTUS
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 6/27/2022 12:02:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By lostinboston:


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.  
View Quote
What "advanced" course are you talking about? Is this some county specific requirement? In onondaga there is no need for additional training or course.
Link Posted: 6/27/2022 12:38:03 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
I mean not just SAFE needs to go away...but the original 1994 AWB too. It's also inevitable.
View Quote
The 1994 Federal AWB did go away in 2004. I believe you are referring to Pataki's 2000 AWB that was written by my Senator at the time, Carl Marcellino-R, who lifted most of the text from the Federal law but without the sunset clause. At the time it did not seem so bad as the bill was mirror of the Federal law and it was substituted for a bill, that had already passed the ASSembly, that was a lot like the SAFE Act we have now. Assemblywoman Naomi Matusow from Westchester was pushing the original draconian bill that was a total outright California type ban.
Link 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.
Link Posted: 6/27/2022 6:46:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By batjka104:
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.
View Quote

Schenectady county is the same.
Link Posted: 6/28/2022 6:36:50 AM EDT
[#42]
Link Posted: 6/28/2022 9:54:36 AM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
Link Posted: 6/28/2022 10:28:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Bushman_269] [#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aardvark:
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.
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 6/28/2022 10:56:26 AM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


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
Link Posted: 6/28/2022 11:57:38 AM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bill3rail:


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
View Quote
Agreed.
Link Posted: 6/28/2022 12:14:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Link Posted: 6/28/2022 2:46:38 PM EDT
[#48]
Link Posted: 6/28/2022 4:22:33 PM EDT
[#49]
Link Posted: 6/28/2022 5:15:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Castillo] [#50]
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top