G-PAC gets New York Wrong

[Tvandermyde]

G-PAC says Illinois is fine and nothing will change, me thinks they read a different opinion than I did
 

 

[Molly B.]

Yep. It's all wishful thinking and whistling past the graveyard for the anti-rights crowd. Their goals of disarming us are toast.

[RANDY]

I am seeing hints that text, history, tradition is strict scrutiny, so they are thinking that narrowly tailored to obtain a certain goal is on the table.  But the ruling reads like if it wasn't regulated in 1791 then you can't regulate it now.

[SiliconSorcerer]

I think sone people won't like this but if illinois requires training they are going to have to provide it expediently at a very minimal cost (or free). 

[richp]

The cost issue is one that got a lot of discussion early one, but not so much lately. Indeed it is a major equal access problem for people of modest means and people of color in poorer areas.

 

And then there is the restriction on carrying on public transit -- again, a huge constraint/deterrent from exercising a constitutional right, particularly for folks who whom busses and trains are an essential part of earning a living.

 

Hopefully this decision will crack the door open on those limits to exercising our rights.

[Craigcr2]

On 6/28/2022 at 7:05 AM, richp said:

The cost issue is one that got a lot of discussion early one, but not so much lately. Indeed it is a major equal access problem for people of modest means and people of color in poorer areas.

 

And then there is the restriction on carrying on public transit -- again, a huge constraint/deterrent from exercising a constitutional right, particularly for folks who whom busses and trains are an essential part of earning a living.

 

Hopefully this decision will crack the door open on those limits to exercising our rights.

Its cost and opportunity cost. The 16hrs creates a disparate impact for some demographics. Not everyone can take the time off of work and/or pay for childcare to get a license. 
 

Non-financial impacts are also in play. My wife’s only reason for not carrying is that we have three young children. There has been very little opportunity for her to take 16 hours away from them. It’s especially concerning to a nursing mother; our only local range  discourages pregnant and nursing mothers from shooting. 

[mikew]

On 6/28/2022 at 7:05 AM, richp said:

And then there is the restriction on carrying on public transit -- again, a huge constraint/deterrent from exercising a constitutional right, particularly for folks who whom busses and trains are an essential part of earning a living.

The ban on carrying on public transit is the sanctioning of a canned hunt, with the law-abiding as prey.

 

[mab22]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:22 AM, mikew said:

The ban on carrying on public transit is sanctioning a canned hunt on the law-abiding.

 

Chicago CTA was complaining about the shootings on the busses, solution, allow citizens to carry and defend themselves. 
Was there a time when carrying on a bus or train was prohibited in our countries history prior to Illinois banning it?
 

[THE KING]

I'm curious about the "substantially similar " language and the lack of reciprocity amongst the states.  

 

Crossing a state line voids your second amendment right if there's no reciprocity.  

 

I think and hope this gets challenged. 

[Plinkermostly]

So, say we all. 

[C0untZer0]

On 6/28/2022 at 5:49 AM, Molly B. said:

Their goals of disarming us are toast.

 

An important boon to gun owners is that now the Supreme Court will take up gun cases and overturn the lower courts poor rulings.  For too long the Supreme Court denied petition on poorly decided Second Amendment cases like Woollard v. Gallagher.

 

Judge Robert B. King, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit:

 

Woollard v. Gallagher

 

Quote

Like several of our sister circuits, we have found that “a two-part approach to Second Amendment claims seems appropriate under Heller.”

 

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121437.P.pdf
 

 

 

If you read the whole opinion in Woolard, it is unbelievable that the 4th circuit upheld the Maryland law.  Judges King, Davis and Diaz found that the law  could be evaluated using intermediate scrutiny.  Then the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.

 

Kachalsky v. Cacace is basically the same...

 

It is possible that going forward the Supreme Court will have to be the final arbiter of all Second Amendment issues because these horrible circuit court judges will continue to find ways to undermine Second Amendment rights and issue horrible opinions.