Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

[east]

even saying it's illegal to fire if you're in clear thread of endangering others, but there's absolutely no way a civilian can injure a dozen people in self defense and get let off, it would be proof they acted recklessly which would negate any defense.

i'd be very interested to see the outcome of a jury trial where someone in this position makes the defense of "it's acceptable for cops with less firearms training than me to injure bystanders, and they enjoy both qualified immunity and the transferred malice doctrine." i'm not aware of any such defense being raised and actually taken to trial yet.

 

[Problematic Pat]

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?

How often does this even occur? You do realize "May Issue" states are dwarfed by "Shall Issue" and yet none of what you described is happening. You are basically creating fear in your mind over an issue that doesn't even exist

 

[gangreen]

Government doesn't have the ability to arbitrarily determine who restrictions apply to. That's the issue with "may issue". The 14th Amendment still exists.

Arbitrarily? If I'm not mistaken but wasn't that law created in New York in the early 20th century to stop street shootings. Wouldn't that still apply today as well according to the New York State legislature who haven't changed or revoked this law in over a century.

You can say that the way the licensing authorities in NY issued concealed weapons licenses with that "may issue" language is arbitrary and capricious but isn't that more of an administrative law matter more than the broad constitutional issue that the majority decision created it into.

Broadly I would even say that the Sullivan Act violates full faith and credit clause is a better argument than the Second Amendment one that Justice Thomas refers to in the majority decision and Justice Alito refers to in his concurring opinion. This specific case was about New York Residents opposing a New York Gun Law on second amenent grounds.

To me a state could curtail their resident's constutional right for the safety or morals of its residents. That is more consistent with the way they are going to overturn abortion rights and allow states to stop abortions.

To strike down this whole law as unconstitutional seems wild and I think really infringes on the rights of State governments who are more intuned with what their residents want with a law that does not absolutely take away the right to bear arms.

It seems that this along with the reasoning for the upcoming overturning of Roe vs. Wade is not being guided by stare decisis but rather the political ideology of the justices before being appointed to the court.

 

[⠀X ⠀]

This was only symbolic because outside of NYC you can get a concealed carry license with no problem… New York State brehs in the various counties upstate and Long Island had no issues getting concealed carry license… This scotus decision is attacking NYC concealed carry but it still has limitations as you can’t carry in venues and other places…

That’s not true at all. You must not live in NY.

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

That’s not true at all. You must not live in NY.

So tell me what’s true

 

[⠀X ⠀]

So tell me what’s true

That it’s nearly impossible to get a concealed carry permit on Long Island

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

That it’s nearly impossible to get a concealed carry permit on Long Island

Nassau or Suffolk?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

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.

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.

Why do y'all think that NYC has one of the lowest murder rates of any big city in the entire country? And why are cities in the most restrictive counties in Cali all below-average in murders as well? (Whereas several cities in conservative Cali areas have murder rates 2x to 3x higher.)

It seems implausible to me that restrictive gun laws haven't played a large part in that.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Why do y'all think that NYC has one of the lowest murder rates of any big city in the entire country? And why are cities in the most restrictive counties in Cali all below-average in murders as well?

It seems implausible to me that restrictive gun laws haven't played a large part in that.

Murder rate in Oakland and Newark, NJ are top 30, Richmond CA top 40, DC and Baltimore (#2) are top 15. Texas has two cities sitting in spots 38 and 42, Arizona, incredibly gun friendly has zero in the top 65

furthermore no one is talking about changing gun laws to make it easier to acquire a gun, I’m in favor of stricter laws and an age increase, it’s making it possible for those who legally own guns and apply for a CCW to receive their CCW if they meet the qualifications - qualifications that are still able to be defined/controlled at the local level, localities also control and can expand the number of places in which concealed weapons can’t be brought in. All of this to say, y’all are conflating conversations. Like I said, the way these may issue areas operate is like you passing the driving test, passing the written test, but being told you can’t get your license because the worker at the DMV doesn’t think you have a good enough reason to want a license. It’s ridiculous that someone can pass a background check for a gun, qualify to carry but be told no just because. You either qualify on the objective criteria or you don’t.

lastly, not sure how you’re equating murder to responsible legal owners being able to carry publicy, vast majority of murder is related to criminal activity and unregistered guns/illegal gun ownership. the average legal owner is not looking to murder for fun or at the drop of a dime, if that were true, gun violence wouldn’t disproportionately affect impoverished areas