Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

[Gus Money]

Congress can address both…

If Dems had there house in order I’m sure they would have made an attempt by now.

Same old Dead7.

 

[Problematic Pat]

This might be the most fraudulent of coli militant talking points.

Anybody with a brain knows why you "stay strapped" types stay strapped. And it damn sure ain't because of a white supremacist.

All y'all ever talk about is white supremacy.

Trump= He's gonna Usher Black ppl into slavery 2.0

Mid Terms= We need to vote out WS before it kills us all

Summer travel plans= Be careful WS is killing ppl

Going grocery shopping= We scared that WS gonna run up in here and kill us

 

[bnew]

Baltimore

nyc has a population density of over 3 times that of baltimore, why do you think more guns is a solution to anything over here?

Population Density Data for Baltimore, MD and New York, NY - Population on the Open Data Network

www.opendatanetwork.com

 

[88m3]

nyc has a population density of over 3 times that of baltimore, why do you think more gun is a solution to anything over here?

Population Density Data for Baltimore, MD and New York, NY - Population on the Open Data Network

www.opendatanetwork.com

they want more black people to die

 

[Matriarchy Refugee]

All y'all ever talk about is white supremacy.

Trump= He's gonna Usher Black ppl into slavery 2.0

Mid Terms= We need to vote out WS before it kills us all

Summer travel plans= Be careful WS is killing ppl

Going grocery shopping= We scared that WS gonna run up in here and kill us

I never posted none of this hyperbolic shyt, so you can stop with the "y'all" shyt. Go larp as a race warrior somewhere else

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

nyc has a population density of over 3 times that of baltimore, why do you think more guns is a solution to anything over here?

Population Density Data for Baltimore, MD and New York, NY - Population on the Open Data Network

www.opendatanetwork.com

...So the arbitrary application of the law doesn't matter because population density?

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

i don't disagree with this. when you have a system where you need to prove to bureaucrats why you need something you end up with only those with connections getting approved. it's like that in jamaica where not everyone can legally have a gun in your home or on your person (the criminals have them in abundance though), but you can apply to have one but only the connected get approved. i'm approved, but that's because i know people. fukk all of that, everyone should at least be able to legally own a gun in their home.

same way they do CCW in most bay area counties, you gotta get approved by the sheriff and it only happens with connected people or the truly rare case of someone being stalked or in a DV situation. yet 3 counties over when you get into the central valley and sierra and northern counties, they approve them on the spot damn near.

reality is we need to strengthen the laws around legally obtaining a gun, but if you clear that, you should be able to carry it...

Reminder that May-Issue is a Jim Crow era law primarily used to disarm black people. There are plenty of conversations we can and should have about guns, but this corrects a historical wrong.

yep, CA's restrictive CC laws are a direct response to the Black Panthers exercising their right to bear arms

 

[88m3]

U.S. gun production has tripled since 2000, fueled by handgun purchases.

www.nytimes.com

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

nyc has a population density of over 3 times that of baltimore, why do you think more guns is a solution to anything over here?

Population Density Data for Baltimore, MD and New York, NY - Population on the Open Data Network

www.opendatanetwork.com

question - do you really think lack of concealed carry licenses are stopping loose cannons, criminals, the unstable and those otherwise looking to be quick to harm others from carrying their guns regardless? at the same time, do you feel someone who has been thoroughly vetted to own a gun and has the responsible view of it being a last resort is going to be more of a threat or start shooting because they are allowed to carry?


this is kinda silly, these laws are like letting people have a driver's license but saying they cant operate their car on the public street...like yea, there are the 1-2 idiots who may use their car to mow people down, but the vast majority of us are just using a car to get from point A to B.

 

[bnew]

question - do you really think lack of concealed carry licenses are stopping loose cannons, criminals, the unstable and those otherwise looking to be quick to harm others from carrying their guns regardless? at the same time, do you feel someone who has been thoroughly vetted to own a gun and has the responsible view of it being a last resort is going to be more of a threat or start shooting because they are allowed to carry?


this is kinda silly, these laws are like letting people have a driver's license but saying they cant operate their car on the public street...like yea, there are the 1-2 idiots who may use their car to mow people down, but the vast majority of us are just using a car to get from point A to B.

a thoroughly vetted gun owner can still shoot and miss hitting the threat/target. my chief concern is for bystanders caught in the crossfire, and make no mistake there will be plenty bystander shootings once the number of legal gun owners increase.

shooting a gun in most places in this city during certain times is not much different from shooting into a crowd.

edit: say for instance a legal gun owner faces a valid threat and fires his gun three times, two bullets strikes the person posing the threat and one bullet strikes an innocent bystander. do you think that gun owner should face criminal charges for shooting the bystander?

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

a thoroughly vetted gun owner can still shoot and miss hitting the threat/target. my chief concern is for bystanders caught in the crossfire, and make no mistake there will be plenty bystander shootings once the number of legal gun owners increase.

shooting a gun in most places in this city during certain times is not much different from shooting into a crowd.

edit: say for instance a legal gun owner faces a valid threat and fires his gun three times, two bullets strikes the person posing the threat and one bullet strikes an innocent bystander. do you think that gun owner should face criminal charges for shooting the bystander?

this is a false assumption, unless you think lack of CCW is keeping gun ownership lower. legal gun ownership only increases where you make it easy to own/obtain a gun. secondly, there are plenty of gun owners who won't even apply for a CCW, this ruling doesn't give it to an owner automatically, nor does it negate the qualifications one needs to meet for CCW, they still need to apply, this just makes it so that anyone who applies and qualifies for a CCW gets it...that's not happening now with the "May-issue" system.

i also don't foresee this meaning the gun owners who now go get CCW's are about to be shooting up people more frequently, in places with lax CC laws, it's still mainly criminals and mass shooters doing the shooting.

yes, similar to driving, where you can get a manslaughter charge for accidentally killing someone, gun owners should as well. legal carry doesn't absolve them from the law, just like being licensed and driving the speed limit but killing someone doesn't absolve you from legal repercussions.

 

[hashmander]

same way they do CCW in most bay area counties, you gotta get approved by the sheriff and it only happens with connected people or the truly rare case of someone being stalked or in a DV situation. yet 3 counties over when you get into the central valley and sierra and northern counties, they approve them on the spot damn near.

reality is we need to strengthen the laws around legally obtaining a gun, but if you clear that, you should be able to carry it...


yep, CA's restrictive CC laws are a direct response to the Black Panthers exercising their right to bear arms

championed by a scared shytless modern day conservative icon ronald wilson reagan.

 

[bnew]

this is a false assumption, unless you think lack of CCW is keeping gun ownership lower. legal gun ownership only increases where you make it easy to own/obtain a gun. secondly, there are plenty of gun owners who won't even apply for a CCW, this ruling doesn't give it to an owner automatically, nor does it negate the qualifications one needs to meet for CCW, they still need to apply, this just makes it so that anyone who applies and qualifies for a CCW gets it...that's not happening now with the "May-issue" system.

i also don't foresee this meaning the gun owners who now go get CCW's are about to be shooting up people more frequently, in places with lax CC laws, it's still mainly criminals and mass shooters doing the shooting.

yes, similar to driving, where you can get a manslaughter charge for accidentally killing someone, gun owners should as well. legal carry doesn't absolve them from the law, just like being licensed and driving the speed limit but killing someone doesn't absolve you from legal repercussions.

current gun ownership in NYC is mostly for residences and theres strict transporting rules when the gun leaves the premises.

it's absolutely naïve to believe this ruling won't create an arms race to get a gun and CCW.

statistically speaking gun owners who can now obtain CCW and carry their gun automatically increases their chances of using it verses if it was only available for use to them at home for protection. criminals are mainly doing the shooting and with todays ruling the likelihood of encountering CCW holder has increased. the likelihood of a firefight and bystanders getting shot has also increased.

 

[east]

edit: say for instance a legal gun owner faces a valid threat and fires his gun three times, two bullets strikes the person posing the threat and one bullet strikes an innocent bystander. do you think that gun owner should face criminal charges for shooting the bystander?

my understanding is that when that happens now, the bad guy is liable under the felony murder rule/transferred malice

i'm aware of several cases where cops shot bystanders by accident and their target ended up getting charged, my google fu is weak atm tho

edit:

After the NYPD Opened Fire on an Unarmed, Mentally Ill Man in Times Square, Who Gets the Blame? - The Village Voice

The night of September 14, 2013, began about as unremarkably as it could for Sahar Khoshakhlagh. She had some family in town — two cousins from overseas — and they had unremarkable plans. Dinner at the National near Times Square, catch a movie. A girls’ night out. Around 9 p.m., the...

www.villagevoice.com

The Police Fatally Shot a Young Girl. Two Teenagers Are Charged With Murder. (Published 2021)

After two teenage boys exchanged gunfire outside a football game in a Philadelphia suburb, the police opened fire and killed an 8-year-old girl. Now the teenagers are charged with a crime.

www.nytimes.com

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

current gun ownership in NYC is mostly for residences and theres strict transporting rules when the gun leaves the premises.

and this is fine except if a person applies for and qualifies for a CCW, they should be approved. I agree with the SCOTUS that the right to bear arms is not something that some states/cities have the right to limit to your home only, if you got approved to own a gun, and you qualify for a CCW, you have the right to carry it.

it's absolutely naïve to believe this ruling won't create an arms race to get a gun and CCW.

CA gun ownership outpaces that of Texas despite TX not requiring permits to carry while most urban areas in CA are "May-issue", this does not create an arms race just because a state becomes a "shall issue" state, there's nothing to back that up. there will not be a mass race to navigate NY's gun purchasing process, only to jump in line to apply for a CCW. and in the off chance law makers feel like an arms race is going to happen, strengthening the laws around purchasing guns are how you slow gun ownership because there are already plenty of legal gun owners who are concealed carrying illegally

statistically speaking gun owners who can now obtain CCW and carry their gun automatically increases their chances of using it verses if it was only available for use to them at home for protection. criminals are mainly doing the shooting and with todays ruling the likelihood of encountering CCW holder has increased. the likelihood of a firefight and bystanders getting shot has also increased.

this isn't substantiated by evidence from other CCW friendly areas.