NYSRPA v. Bruen Oral Argument

[HCM]

When I got my permit in Otsego county it was pretty rough, and I grew up there. I had to have 3 references I had known for 5 years, who lived in my county or a connected one.

I was outright told no by a very close family friend, because he felt it would invite more scrutiny on him - a normal non criminal family dude. There is a real sense of "the government/cops are out to get you" among regular people in central NY. Especially those with less money.

My references had to fill out a form about who they are, what they thought of me. Then have it signed by a notory. In duplicate. Of course months later I had a phone interview with a detective, and months later still I eventually was approved for my unrestricted carry permit. It was nothing like my experience in Florida.

If this goes our way, I see more odd admin requirements in the application process.

Agreed.

One of the requirements when I obtained a NY permit years ago was that in addition to the references if you lived with a spouse, other family such as parents, or a co-habitant boy/girlfriend you had to have them sign a notarized form that they were aware you were applying for a permit and that they were ok with you having a handgun in the residence.

Re: the geographic proximity of references - it is an antiquated requirement based on the technology available to vet and interact with people a century ago when many of these requirements were first imposed.

[DMF13]

I'll just throw this out there, if the Court sides with the plaintiffs, I would prefer a 5-4 decision written by someone other than Chief Justice Roberts, than a 6-3 decision written by the Chief Justice.

[TGS]

This is why I find any and all restrictions on the second amendment to be unreasonable. Yes, even mentally challenged former felons should be allowed to own guns. If someone is so dangerous that they can’t be entrusted to own a gun, then society shouldn’t allow them to freely walk around where they might sharpen a toothbrush on a sidewalk and use it to stab children on a train or steal a truck and drive it into a crowd.

The idea of any kind of restrictions is ridiculous to me. Once we start down the “reasonable and common sense” restrictions path we enter the world of the subjective where to politicians in NYC, the above are reasonable restrictions. As William Aprill always said, don’t impose your world view onto others, and what you think is reasonable may only go 1% as far as the anti-gunners.

Personally, I’ll take my second amendment uninfringed, please. Like the text of the amendment literally reads.

In a vacuum I agree with you, but something needs to be said about this in particular:

Once we start down the “reasonable and common sense” restrictions path we enter the world of the subjective where to politicians in NYC, the above are reasonable restrictions.

This isn't a choice we can make. We are already there. We've been there since before any of us were born. We've been there since before the 2A was the least bit controversial. SCOTUS has held rights are not absolute, and that's not changing. You might not like it, but that's the America you actually live in.

So, you can scream, pout and stomp your feet about it....or you can live within reality and advocate for productive policies within a realistic scope, or at the very least support people like Josh.

100% with @HCM on this. It doesn't just make gun owners sound like a fringe looney to people because you are all "muh gun rightz", it makes people think you're a fringe looney because you are rejecting some very basic truths about the country we live in, meaning you're incapable of functioning in reality.

[High Cross]

I volunteer a lot with Christian Ragosta and David Conte. Thank you for all you do.

[joshs]

Personally, I’ll take my second amendment uninfringed, please. Like the text of the amendment literally reads.

But that doesn't answer any questions about what is and isn't with the scope of "the right of the people . . . ." Sure, the right can't be infringed, but you need to know what the right protects before deciding whether a particular law infringes on that right. There are quite a few historical laws that have (I think) relatively easy answers.

Traditional felonies were death eligible in the period leading up to the founding. It's pretty hard to claim that the government can kill someone, but not restrict their civil rights. This is often expressed in the law as the "greater includes the lesser." It's not always a great argument, but, here, I think it's pretty straight-forward.

There are also location restrictions that have strong historical foundations. Arms have generally been prohibited in courtrooms throughout the entire relevant historical period. Heller already essentially foreclosed all government buildings and schools. I'm not sure that's correct as a matter of history and tradition, but we're likely stuck with at least those locations as places where governments can prohibit arms.

[DAB]

I can see a lot of private places declaring themselves "gun free", but making no effort to be "gun free". just a sign near the front door. but no way to check your firearm for your visit, no checking of visitors to make sure it is in fact "gun free", and no armed security to make sure security is maintained sans armed citizens.

It's one thing to do the "walk of shame" back to your car in the parking lot (no guns in the store you need to buy something at), but it's harder to stash your gun if your car is back in the parking lot where you got on the train to go to work in the big city (assuming the train isn't declared "gun free" too).

Lots of ways NY is going to make whatever ruling basically pointless for the average person there.

[Stephanie B]

Assuming the court says it’s ok to ban guns on the subway, doesn’t that basically neuter the right to carry for all but the rich?

(Missouri did that when they legalized concealed carry. The only place it was a felony to carry wasvon public transportation.)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

For the record, TX screwed with everyday life with bans on schools, medical facilities, houses of worships, bar bans, etc. at first. It was the same choice of leaving the gun in the car. The ease of ghost buster signs was also a great hinderance. It was the move to 30.06, the change for houses of worship to demand explicit ban signs, freeing up work parking lots that alleviated this somewhat (as parking lot bans totally made carry useless for the working week). I note that the OC movement and constitutional carry brought back more signs.

It was explicitly stated as a strategy to make carry useless. That's why I harp on MUH PROPERTY RIGHTZ as idiotic in this case.

[RoyGBiv]

How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.

And FWIW, we already have myriad government impositions on private businesses. From health and safety codes to ADA. So I call BS on deferring to Private Property Rights as an excuse to allowing restrictions on Constitutionally Enumerated Rights in "privately owned places open to the public".

[TGS]

Assuming the court says it’s ok to ban guns on the subway, doesn’t that basically neuter the right to carry for all but the rich?

(Missouri did that when they legalized concealed carry. The only place it was a felony to carry wasvon public transportation.)

I was thinking about this, and in NYC's case I think CCW is already problematic to begin with given the density of schools and their annexes. Totally agree with your point, otherwise.

ETA: For anyone unfamiliar with NYC, I just looked it up and the number of public schools in NYC is 1,722 within only 300sq miles of land mass....do the math on the Gun Free School Zone Act and it preventing carry within 1,000 feet of a school. There's so many schools that they're not even titled like schools in the rest of the US (ex: North Regional High, Lebowski Elementary, etc), they're just "PS" (Public School) followed by a number. 1,722 is just the public schools....there's tons of private schools on top of that. NYPD's School Safety Division on its own is about equal in size to the 7th biggest police department in the US (Houston PD).

ETA2: Couldn't stop, so I looked it up.....217 private schools in NYC, on top of the 1,722 public schools.