U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of New York Gun Laws (Again)

[mauserme]

https://dailygazette.com/2023/09/26/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-constitutionality-of-new-york-gun-laws/

 

U.S. Supreme Court to consider constitutionality of New York gun laws

By Ashley Hupfl | September 26, 2023

 

ALBANY — New York’s concealed carry gun laws will once again go in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh whether they are constitutional.

 

Gov. Kathy Hochul told reporters at the state Capitol Tuesday afternoon that her office had been notified only an hour earlier that Justice Clarence Thomas had granted the request for an emergency conference to evaluate the state’s new gun laws.

...

Hochul maintains that the new laws will hold up to scrutiny and are constitutional.

 

Assemblyman Robert Smullen, R-Johnstown, heralded Thomas’ decision.

“I strongly support Justice Thomas in his decision to intervene in Gov. Hochul’s unconstitutional Concealed Carry Improvement Act,” Smullen said. “I am hopeful this emergency conference will allow the Supreme Court to fully review the consequences of these unconstitutional gun laws on lawful gun owners. 

...

 

 

 

[bmyers]

I take this as a good sign that SCOTUS might be getting tired of all the playing games with people's rights. 

[THE KING]

Awesome, I think New York deemed almost every location as being sensitive and therefore prohibited from carrying.  

 

If this gets addressed by SCOTUS and New York gets slapped down in a big way, this could gut prohibited locations across the USA. 

 

Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner just discussed this issue. His comments about Sensitive locations that dated back to 1791 as stated in previous Supreme Court cases only identified 3 such locations.  Polling places, Court houses and legislative assembly locations.  This could get interesting.  

[THE KING]

 

[Bubbacs]

On 9/27/2023 at 6:49 AM, bmyers said:

I take this as a good sign that SCOTUS might be getting tired of all the playing games with people's rights. 

Yes but why can’t they step up and finish this once and for all.  They have that power.  Drop the hammer on the 2A issues all at once, no more piece meal drip drip drip!  What constitutional for one is constitutional for all.  Period.  Done.

[yurimodin]

On 9/27/2023 at 8:26 AM, THE KING said:

Awesome, I think New York deemed almost every location as being sensitive and therefore prohibited from carrying.  

 

If this gets addressed by SCOTUS and New York gets slapped down in a big way, this could gut prohibited locations across the USA. 

 

Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner just discussed this issue. His comments about Sensitive locations that dated back to 1791 as stated in previous Supreme Court cases only identified 3 such locations.  Polling places, Court houses and legislative assembly locations.  This could get interesting.  

They were specifically told not to do this in the text of Bruen.......at this point I would be willing to offer NY, NJ, & CA peaceful secession. 

[mauserme]

I'm hoping the court sees this as a question of its survival as a co-equal branch.   Illinois, California, New York are outright saying nope, they're not listening to the judiciary anymore unless it supports a Progressive agenda.

 

 

[starwatcher]

Let them declare the state a sensitive area, but require the government be held accountable for every crime committed within the sensitive area.

 

You get robbed, the government is required to make you whole, you get assaulted the government pays for your medical bills. So on and so forth.

 

If the government can find the perpetrator then the government has to go after them for reimbursement.

Edited September 27, 2023 at 05:17 PM by starwatcher

[BobPistol]

On 9/27/2023 at 10:16 AM, starwatcher said:

Let them declare the state a sensitive area, but require the government be held accountable for every crime committed within the sensitive area.

 

You get robbed, the government is required to make you whole, you get assaulted the government pays for your medical bills. So on and so forth.

 

If the government can find the perpetrator then the government has to go after them for reimbursement.

 

Why stop at the government?

Hold the anti-gun politicians PERSONALLY liable. 

When they start filing personal bankruptcy, they'll think twice about yanking our rights. 

Edited September 27, 2023 at 06:46 PM by BobPistol

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 9/27/2023 at 10:20 AM, mauserme said:

I'm hoping the court sees this as a question of its survival as a co-equal branch.   Illinois, California, New York are outright saying nope, they're not listening to the judiciary anymore unless it supports a Progressive agenda.

 

 

 

I'm sure that it is taking notice, however, didn't a democrat senator already state that there was going to be a revolt if the gun laws are overturned?  

 

IL is already blatantly refusing to obey the court injunctions against PICA.

 

I fully expect CA, NY, IL to continue to enforce the bans and tell the SCOTUS to go ahead and try to enforce their ruling.  

 

 

[mab22]

On 9/27/2023 at 10:20 AM, mauserme said:

I'm hoping the court sees this as a question of its survival as a co-equal branch.   Illinois, California, New York are outright saying nope, they're not listening to the judiciary anymore unless it supports a Progressive agenda.

 

 

But what teeth does the judiciary have, and if any,  are they willing to use it?

Can they put a Governor, and congress in Jail for contempt of court, will they?

[mab22]

On 9/27/2023 at 2:16 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I'm sure that it is taking notice, however, didn't a democrat senator already state that there was going to be a revolt if the gun laws are overturned?  

 

IL is already blatantly refusing to obey the court injunctions against PICA.

 

I fully expect CA, NY, IL to continue to enforce the bans and tell the SCOTUS to go ahead and try to enforce their ruling.  

 

 

What injunction?

There are none at the moment that I can think of.

Caulkins messed up the state one, which Devore is trying to fix, and a Federal appellate judge decided he had to intervene on the states behalf,  and is more than likely letting it just sit and stew cause his legal theory no longer carries any water.

[MDPerry]

I am not sure what the judicial can do directly if a State refuses to obey judicial rulings.  However, how can a State enforce a law that violates judicial rulings?  Won't any such cases be thrown out of court with prejudice?

[ragsbo]

On 9/27/2023 at 2:53 PM, mab22 said:

But what teeth does the judiciary have, and if any,  are they willing to use it?

Can they put a Governor, and congress in Jail for contempt of court, will they?

There is such a thing as contempt of court and judges can lock you up for it. I don't know why the Supreme Court would NOT have that ability to go after what them. Got to make it hurt and hurt personally.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 9/27/2023 at 2:57 PM, mab22 said:

What injunction?

There are none at the moment that I can think of.

Caulkins messed up the state one, which Devore is trying to fix, and a Federal appellate judge decided he had to intervene on the states behalf,  and is more than likely letting it just sit and stew cause his legal theory no longer carries any water.

 

Meant the TROs.  Caulkins, DeVore, and freedom week.    ISP is of the position that banned guns purchased during those TROs will not be legal come Jan 1st. 

[mab22]

On 9/27/2023 at 7:12 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Meant the TROs.  Caulkins, DeVore, and freedom week.    ISP is of the position that banned guns purchased during those TROs will not be legal come Jan 1st. 

Cue another law suit, Illinois won’t care until SCOTUS puts a jack boot on its neck and starts pressing. 

[illinois_buckeye]

With all the stuff the states are pulling I wish the courts would simply say all gun laws are unconstitutional except the 2nd amendment.  
 

That said I think background chicks are a good thing, and I don’t think as average citizens we need fully automatic weapons but it feels like the left has tried to push this so far.

[sctman800]

On 9/28/2023 at 3:31 AM, illinois_buckeye said:

 

That said I think background chicks are a good thing, and I don’t think as average citizens we need fully automatic weapons but it feels like the left has tried to push this so far.

 

      Full auto firearms must have a federal license to own and if you have that there are many states where they can be legally owned.  This is true in my new and forever home of Indiana where we also have constitutional carry with no blood running in the streets.   Jim.

[mauserme]

Decriminalizing full auto is a natural extension of overturning current bans.  I believe the 7th Circuit is struggling with this reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[papa]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:31 AM, illinois_buckeye said:

With all the stuff the states are pulling I wish the courts would simply say all gun laws are unconstitutional except the 2nd amendment.  
 

That said I think background chicks are a good thing, and I don’t think as average citizens we need fully automatic weapons but it feels like the left has tried to push this so far.

 

There are 40 states that allow Full auto firearms as long as they were made before 1986 .   If they were a problem , we would have seen it in the news media before now. 

 

https://www.nationalguntrusts.com/blogs/nfa-gun-trust-atf-information-database-blog/nfa-items-permitted-by-state

[davel501]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:31 AM, illinois_buckeye said:

With all the stuff the states are pulling I wish the courts would simply say all gun laws are unconstitutional except the 2nd amendment.  
 

That said I think background chicks are a good thing, and I don’t think as average citizens we need fully automatic weapons but it feels like the left has tried to push this so far.

 

They would be useful for militia purposes. End of story.

[yurimodin]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:31 AM, illinois_buckeye said:

With all the stuff the states are pulling I wish the courts would simply say all gun laws are unconstitutional except the 2nd amendment.  
 

That said I think background chicks are a good thing, and I don’t think as average citizens we need fully automatic weapons but it feels like the left has tried to push this so far.

Didn't have any of that before the NFA and we were just fine.

[Flynn]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:31 AM, illinois_buckeye said:

I don’t think as average citizens we need fully automatic weapons but it feels like the left has tried to push this so far.

 

The average citizen doesn't need free speech, the right to vote, the right to practice religion either, but that is the point of protected civil rights you don't need a need to exercise them...

 

We need to break our own mold, we have been so conditioned to infringements and that it's the government's job to decide for us and control our lives, that we actually support infringements in something akin to Stockholm syndrome...

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 9/28/2023 at 5:50 AM, mauserme said:

Decriminalizing full auto is a natural extension of overturning current bans.  I believe the 7th Circuit is struggling with this reality.

To me this is like abortion, it'll never be resolved and I just ignore it anymore, God forgive me.

I'm fine with anything where one trigger pull fires one round designed to kill one thing. 

I'm not saying full-auto should be illegal but I'm not standing up to participate in the full-auto, cannon, grenade launcher, rocket launcher debate.

[mauserme]

Maybe, but as Flynn noted above you, protecting our rights is about about keeping all aspects of those rights viable.

 

 

[Flynn]

On 9/28/2023 at 1:19 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I'm fine with anything where one trigger pull fires one round designed to kill one thing. 

 

And you should have the option to exercise your right to that limited extent if you choose, just like some people are fully accepting of self-censorship or allowing invasion of privacy...

 

But, the blunt reality is that we have historical proof that if we 'allow' the government to ban full-auto then they will take the next step to ban semi-auto and then to ban multi-capacity firearms and there will be some that embrace with full acceptance those bans as "OK" and then they will re-define one pull one bullet and ban firearms that are in fact one pull one bullet claiming they are full auto even though they are not...   Then they will decide this or that caliber can be banned and then this or that style of firearm...  We have seen the playbook, history has recorded it...  A right should never be treated that way, if it is then it's not a right at all...

[Euler]

On September 28, 2023 at 09:52 AM, yurimodin said:→

On 9/28/2023 at 2:31 AM, illinois_buckeye said:

With all the stuff the states are pulling I wish the courts would simply say all gun laws are unconstitutional except the 2nd amendment.

That said I think background chicks are a good thing, and I don’t think as average citizens we need fully automatic weapons but it feels like the left has tried to push this so far.

Didn't have any of that before the NFA and we were just fine.

Background checks were introduced in GCA 1968, because Oswald used an assumed name to buy firearms mail-order out-of-state to a PO box. Of course, the logic at the time was that a background check would have denied a firearm to a known Communist. As it turns out, Communists also have 2A rights, but we still have background checks and restricted interstate commerce, anyway.

Edited September 28, 2023 at 07:56 PM by Euler

[yurimodin]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:54 PM, Euler said:

Background checks were introduced in GCA 1968, because Oswald used an assumed name to buy firearms mail-order out-of-state to a PO box. Of course, the logic at the time was that a background check would have denied a firearm to a known Communist. As it turns out, Communists also have 2A rights, but we still have background checks and restricted interstate commerce, anyway.
 

While they may have 2A rights they are explicitly exempted from discrimination protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act 

Edited September 28, 2023 at 08:31 PM by yurimodin

[Euler]

On September 28, 2023 at 03:31 PM, yurimodin said:→

While they may have 2A rights they are explicitly exempted from discrimination protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act

For employment discrimination. Employers could fire (or not hire in the first place) people who were communist, but communists could still own firearms, vote, etc. The point is that the GCA wouldn't have stopped Oswald from getting firearms, despite the fact that several provisions -- including background checks -- of the GCA were in response to his actions, and we still have it today.

Edited September 28, 2023 at 11:16 PM by Euler

[SiliconSorcerer]

I was just saying from time of fertilization to until the umbilical cord is cut, extremes never compromise. 

I may lean very strongly one way but if we can find a happy middle without fighting about it constantly.

Illinois had a extreme position on concealed carry and got bi...slapped and probably will again, I prefer it that way I just wouldn't push the full-auto (right yet).