NYSRPA v. Bruen Oral Argument

[RoyGBiv]

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).

Reminder that GFSZA does not prohibit carry if the carrier is licensed by the state in which the school zone resides.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Having taken the crowded subways for many years and knowing the aggressive tendencies of some of the populace, I pity the fool who would OC on the trains. The folks who claim they OC in Mayberry, need to ride the frottage express for a bit.

Anyone remember the train scene in Predator II with the gang members and then passengers drawing on each other? Unfortunately, the Predator killed them all.

Pocket carry would be the way to go, although some would think you are glad to seen them.

[TGS]

Reminder that GFSZA does not prohibit carry if the carrier is licensed by the state in which the school zone resides.

Right, good note. Looks like NYC has a law on it as well that allows you to carry within a school zone, but only if you're going between your home, bank, or business provided you're allowed to carry at those places. So you aren't legal to strap up if you're going to the corner stop'n'rob, out to dinner with friends, etc, or if you're on the way to/fro work and your employer doesn't allow carry.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...er_Sec_460.pdf

[Glenn E. Meyer]

At our Erie County permit class, the instructor took pains to tell us that if you drive through the University campus it's a felony. That is a trick because major roads go through the campus. Oops. Like I said, only technical bans are acceptable in a theoretical discussion. The MRI for example or an airplane flight. The latter is controversial, I grant you, that's an argument for another day.

[HeavyDuty]

At our Erie County permit class, the instructor took pains to tell us that if you drive through the University campus it's a felony. That is a trick because major roads go through the campus. Oops. Like I said, only technical bans are acceptable in a theoretical discussion. The MRI for example or an airplane flight. The latter is controversial, I grant you, that's an argument for another day.

They don’t have an exception for public ways through prohibited areas? Even IL does that, both roadways and trails. If you are legal on both sides and don’t deviate from the roadway or path, you’re safe.

[Joe S]

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?

Yes. I guess if you wanted to get strapped for a particular occasion, that you could justify a taxi to and from, or in the neighborhood, but it would effectively prevent legal EDC for the vast majority of working class folks.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I won't be the test case for driving through the campus. About interfering with the EDC of most folks - that's the plan. How many times must I tell you folks that. State controlled institutions, MUH PROPERTY RIGHTZ with stores frightened by liability threats, don't offend God Almighty with your Gun (divine intervention - wait for it) - all making carry to difficult. We already know that most licensed folks don't carry most of the time.

[joshs]

I won't be the test case for driving through the campus. About interfering with the EDC of most folks - that's the plan. How many times must I tell you folks that. State controlled institutions, MUH PROPERTY RIGHTZ with stores frightened by liability threats, don't offend God Almighty with your Gun (divine intervention - wait for it) - all making carry to difficult. We already know that most licensed folks don't carry most of the time.

I don't think that's true in a lot of states in the south, midwest, and mountain west. We've been slowly chipping away at prohibited places to try to entirely eliminate them. Before Virginia changed the laws last year, I was able to effectively carry everywhere I went every day. Now, preschools and parks are off limits, which means having a holster with an easy to use belt clip is more important for me now (for now, we're already challenging the local ban on parks in court).

ETA: In a lot of those states any prohibitions on private property also have to be enforced like trespass where you need actual notice and a refusal to leave. So, as a practical matter, they don't affect concealed carry.

[Sanch]

*post deleted, rules reminder* - Mod

Threads that are currently outside of GD may remain there, but the rules of the political subforum will be in place there as well. Posts of a political nature in threads that weren't started as a political thread are subject to deletion without notice.

This is a new policy and the admin/mods have been working to get a set of rules that seem fair, but we understand we might not have perfected it on the first go.


*The sole exception to this is specific 2nd amendment politics. These threads must be narrow in scope, such as a specific legislation proposal, lawsuit filed, new law going into affect, etc. General "they are anti-gun" does not qualify for this exception. General complaining about a given candidate does not qualify. Specific and limited in scope.

[joshs]

I find it odd listening to the NY State argument in this case that there’s historical precedent for gun control in cities and therefore is justification to continue it. (Edited to relevant portion - Mod)

That's what the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments changed. This is also why the state didn't try to rely on any history of laws that selectively disarmed Americans based on race, sex, or national origin. The 14th amendment unquestionably prohibits such laws.

If you catch Clement's comment about the appropriate history for evaluating the right, he admits that the appropriate history for applying the right to the states might be slightly different than the federal government because the 2nd and 14th amendments were ratified at different times. In this case, the general understanding of the right to carry was essentially the same, so there's no real difference. At least that's our argument.

I'm pretty much a liberty absolutist too, but I imagine there are some scenarios where even you think government can limit the right. Can the government prohibit those currently serving a term of imprisonment from carrying a firearm in prison? If so, then we need a principled way to apply the amendment. Original public meaning is the most intellectually honest and consistent with our idea of where law comes from. For example, the government can't change the meaning of a criminal statute just because the meaning of some words in the statute have changed over time. The statute must be amended to apply to new conduct to be consistent with our system of due process.