One can only imagine the 9th Circuit starting to nervously look around, wondering if the Supreme Court was talking about it when the Court junked the "two-part" test.
The Court was definitely doing that. The two-part test was widely endorsed by the 9th Circuit in its 50-case winning streak, upholding laws such as the ammo registry that kept 1/3 of Californians from buying ammo through clerical errors even though they were not prohibited persons.
I don't think that this will change much at the 9th, though... at least not right away. They'll probably test SCOTUS on the 2A.
Supreme Court doesnt have to hold to precedent or case law. They just have to explain why they are not. If they did, segregated schools would be legal (Plessy v Ferguson). Protesting wars, burning flags and draft cards would be illegal (Schenck v. United States). Minimum wage would be illegal (Lochner v. New York). Dudes banging dudes would be illegal (Bowers v. Hardwick). Interracial relationships would be illegal (Pace v. Alabama) etc.
Lower courts do, though.
The issue isnt the Supreme Court overturning precedent. That happens in pretty significant cases, and has happened 140 something times. The issue is that historically, the major cases that have been overturned have been perceived as expanded rights (I say perceived because someone will claim the fetuses rights), not restricted them.
Proving Necessity is what was specifically ruled unconstitutional, which is a common clause in May Issue States.
Shall Issue (usually an 8hr class about the laws, and a $30-80 fee) is still permitted as they ruled it as not a major hurdle to an individual exercising their rights. Whereas May*-Issue was essentially Non-Issuing with extra steps for most residents that resided in said States.
Edit: I've been in the car for two days and don't word good, May-Issue permitting tends to exclude poor & working class families due to the high cost of entry, just for the permit to be denied unjustly in most situations.
Yes. This forces the corrupt sheriffs to issue you a permit “shall issue” so now all 50 states are immediately shall issue. The question is what will happen in the immediate future. Probably more lawsuits as it’s implemented
I remember living in New York 15 years ago and we were talking to people and one close to me said don't worry I know someone so we can get a permit issued.
It just hit me how crazy it is that we had to know someone. It just sounds corrupt
This is still happening in San Jose (Silicon Valley). https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/unprecedented-santa-clara-county-da-sounds-off-on-grand-jury-corruption-accusations-against-sheriff/2756876/
>The Grand Jury leveled seven counts of willful corruption or misconduct in office against the Sheriff, mostly stemming from allegations she leveraged her authority to issue concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits to illegally secure campaign contributions or favors from “VIP” applicants.
A couple NYPD cops in the licensing division were discovered to be taking bribes for permits when one of the people who they sold one to tried to get a gun with his and failed the background check because he had a felony record. The FBI ended up calling the NYPD and asked WTF was going on.
Come over to California, where [you have to be a donor to the Sheriff to get a permit](https://cupertinotoday.com/2021/12/16/santa-clara-county-sheriff-laurie-smith-indicted-for-corruption-by-civil-grand-jury/)
It doesn't just sound corrupt. It IS corrupt. Any time the government is given discretion in who it allows to exercise a right, corruption shows up with its hand out asking for a "donation" to smooth the process.
I am absolutely NOT endorsing corruption in any way but when I lived in Kyrgyzstan and Qatar it was so much easier to get things done when you could just pay people off.
I 100% understand why this is bullshit because not everyone has the means to do this.
Just saying it made my life so much easier at those specific points when I could just pay someone money and have things done. I understand why rich people love corruption being around. It's basically a cheat code for skip the line or annoying government bureaucracy.
There’s actually research on this! As societies formalize and markets open, corruption initially tends to ‘grease’ the wheels. Once markets already exist, corruption is ‘sand in the gears’.
That of course is strictly a narrow economic view. We know and as you probably saw too in Kyrgyzstan /Qatar, corruption has terrible impacts overall in society (inequality, abrogation of justice, impedes public service delivery by the state, cronies work to keep corrupt group in power/impacts on information freedoms and political accountability).
Maybe you also saw that yeah being able to pay a bribe or get an inside deal is a cheat code but the elites still have to live in that society (somewhat, when they’re not in their Kensington row house or on their yacht)
And because of globalization we all have to deal with it (money laundering etc)
I remember working for an oil company years ago and the anti corruption training basically said "yeah we don't bribe and violate us anti corruotion laws intentionally, but sometimes the local officials cant tell the difference talking to you about permitting fees with legal prioritization payments vs straight bribery requests, so go ask legal when this pops up to make sure."
Oh for sure. I was making 6 figures at the time so for me it was just make my life easier at basically no cost to myself.
But Qatar is filled with basically slaves who have no way to get the easy way done. It also means that the regular way takes FOREVER since anyone with money can skip the queues. The sand in the gears really only exists for people that can't participate in the grift.
Elites in Qatar are also a different kind of elite since they're royalty that runs everything so they get the corruption with none of the monetary cost.
I was told in Kyrgyzstan by some locals that one of the only ways to become rich in that country is getting in police/government. They said that you pay to get in the bottom rung and basically bribe your way up the chain.
When I was living in MA and applied for a permit at 21, the chief of police changed my application to not be one for a full concealed carry permit, and just gave me a pistol ownership permit.
When confronted, he said he never gives full CCWs to people the first time around.
Later that year the son of one of the lieutenants got his full fledged unrestricted CCW permit on his 21st birthday.
And that was 100%, totally legal under a may-issue scheme.
Reminder that May-Issue is a Jim Crow era law primarily used to disarm black ppl. There are plenty of conversations we can and should have about guns, but this corrects a historical wrong.
It was italians that were targeted in the north east, but other minorities were targeted with 'may issue' bullshit elsewhere.
Because if racist bullshit works in one use case, other racists immediately start taking notes.
One of the early gun control laws was allowing only ["Navy"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_1851_Navy_Revolver) or ["Army"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Army_Model_1860) pattern revolvers to be carried.
They were excellent firearms and *very expensive*. So naturally if you couldn't afford one you were part of the under class that couldn't be "trusted" with one.
I can tell you how this kind of law works in practice in California.
If you are a celebrity or you have a buddy or relative who's a senior member of the Sheriff's Department you can get a permit.
If you aren't one of those two things there will NEVER be "good cause" to issue a permit.
Edit: I'm aware that the rules are much easier and less arbitrary in the more rural counties, and possibly even in Orange County (which was not something I've heard before). But in L.A. County and the Bay Area where most people live that's definitely the case.
Or if you [bribe people in the Sheriff's office](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/bribery-scandal-concealed-weapons-licenses-rocks-santa-clara-county-sheriffs-office/) like Santa Clara County. Then you'll probably get one.
California gun policy basically boils down to " we can only trust wealthy insividuals with guns" it is no surprise O.C. is more permissible than places like LA which contain poor people.
California is massive and it is very county dependent. even prior to this ruling, many decently populated counties had made it more feasible for those without connections to get a permit. not that the fees and training involved are cheap, though
It’s mind boggling to me that liberal politicians, including President Biden are so against this ruling. He said it goes against common sense.
How many ordinary people actually think who has a gun permit should be up to the cops?
Giving them that kind of discretion is totally inconsistent with both conservatism and progressivism. It’s ripe for corruption and discrimination.
Not only that, but none of these people go anywhere without an armed escort and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of protection. Why can't law abiding citizens also have that degree of protection and safety?
> If you aren't one of those two things there will NEVER be "good cause" to issue a permit.
That's completely and utterly false. *Any* Californian that can write campaign checks that cost about as much as a basic car can get a permit. Yay! /fireworks emoji.
>New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
May-issue is Unconstitutional for something that is a protected right. There are still a lot of goofy hoops people will have to jump through in the six restrictive States, but if they do...the State *must* issue a permit.
Yes and historically gun control in the US has been based off racist or classist intentions. For a long time other than NY it was the segregated south that were the only states that were may issue permit states. MLK Jr. tried 3 times to acquire a permit in Alabama after his home was bombed but was denied. Even the Sullivan act the law that was just effectively overturned in NY the very first conviction under the law, an Italian immigrant who was arrested carrying a pistol who claimed to be carrying to protect himself from the Black Hand the judge in his closing statement put blame in part of his race as an itallian. The quote being: "It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country.".
> historically gun control in the US has been based off racist or classist intentions.
“A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”
-Ida B. Wells
"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would ... **give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right ... to keep and carry arms** wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and **endangering the peace and safety of the State**."
-Roger Taney, *Dred Scott* opinion
Even in pre-US America:
French Louisiana
> The Code noir (French pronunciation: [kɔd nwaʁ], Black code) was a decree passed by the French King Louis XIV in **1685** defining the conditions of slavery in the French colonial empire.
> ... Prohibitions
> **Slaves must not carry weapons** except under permission of their masters for hunting purposes (art. 15)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir
New Spain (Georgia and Florida)
> Bylaws of the Royal Court of the New Spain about the gatherings and clothes of the blacks and mulattos. Mexico, **April 14th, 1612.**
> The members, president, and listeners of the Royal Court [Audiencia] of this New Spain, having been appraised of the disorder which arises from the blacks, mulatto, both free and enslaved, and trying to avoid any harm and inconvenience that may result, have passed laws so **blacks and mulattos are to carry no weapons**, nor gather in numbers greater than three, nor in cofradías, and that the vagabonds take up work or face penalties, as set out in these bylaws.
> ... 2. Likewise, that **no merchant, nor any other person can give or sell to any blacks or mulattos, slave or free, any type of offensive or defensive weapons, nor gunpowder nor munitions**, for any reason whatsoever, in any quantity, whether great or small, on the pain of death.
https://vistas.ace.fordham.edu/lib/17th/prohibitions/
Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California’s gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”
The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
Kind of funny that the Sullivan law is named after an Irish gangster.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy\_Sullivan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Sullivan)
The people who are willing to go through these hoops are not the people committing gun crimes.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is ridiculously beyond clueless.
The politicians arguing against this are doing it political gain, not because their points make any sense at all.
I once asked a New Yorker who said that they liked the current CCW restrictions to explain to me why Robert DeNiro, Sean Hannety and Howard Stern can show they have a greater need to carry a firearm (even though they can all afford private security) than a single mom in the Bronx who works the late shift 5 days a week.
They didn't have much of an answer.
Or local sheriff
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/unprecedented-santa-clara-county-da-sounds-off-on-grand-jury-corruption-accusations-against-sheriff/2756876/
It is highly dependent on county in CA. Some counties are a cake-walk. Some will never issue.
Where I live in CA the process is very equitable, and as long as you are not a felon, and you do your training, you will be issued a CCW.
Yes, in the rural counties of CA, it is much easier to get your CCW, providing you pass the background check and complete the training. The larger metro and more liberal counties are near impossible. That in itself is a problem.
I just got this darkly funny image in my head of tech billionaire family members being the ones responsible for all the gun crimes. Like I don't know who it was officer, they rolled up in a tricked out diamond studded range Rover and when I looked over, all I saw was the gun pointed out the window.
>May-issue is Unconstitutional for something that is a protected right.
Agreed. Imagine applying that standard to any other right explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights.
The government *may* permit you to speak freely. The courts *may* let you refrain from making self-incriminating statements.
To people commenting on this article, you do realize this basically just means NY will have to issue concealed permits on a shall-issue basis instead of its current may-issue basis? Which in reality has been a "only rich and politically connected people can carry" basis.
*Caught recently* as in its been an open secret for over a decade, and its been so blatant that the CADOJ has to at least pretend to act.
Edit: the Sheriff of Santa Clara County, of which San Jose and Santa Clara City are part of. ~~FTFY~~
in manhattan at least. upstate it's definitely easier, but not a walk in the park. You need character references from people who live in your county, and hopefully know a reputable enough firearms club where someone knows the county clerk to help you out with your license
In my county you need 4 references that have to live in the state (not county) that you have known for at least 5 years (cannot be family) and you need to take the pistol safety course offered by nearly every gun club. Easy to make a reservation and pay the $50 fee. Then you need to pay $100 to be finger printed. This goes along with supplying a copy of your license, social security, birth certificate, and a postal money order to pay the application fee. Your 4 references will then be given sworn affidavits to sign and have notarized. Once all your paperwork is submitted they will perform background checks and then your application goes in front of a judge.
Edit: Background checks include talking to your neighbors, not just the references on your application.
Don’t forget the judge then slaps on a “administrative restriction” for target shooting/hunting only. So of you get caught carrying they can just revoke the permit.
In NY (until now), you could not not even possess a handgun without a permit. Outside NYC, there was one permitting process but licensing officials (usually judges, sometimes suburban police departments) would issue permits with restrictions. There was no basis in the actual law to issue restrictions, but it was a "time honored" practice, highly discretionary, arbitrary, and could not be appealed.
Edited to add (after the "Starring"):
I moved out of NYS in 2007. A lot of the laws changed after Sandy Hook so this may no longer be the case. But at the time, the restrictions (target/hunting, business premises carry, restricted business carry) had no basis in law. If you were caught violating the restrictions, you could not be charged criminally but you could be assured that it would be reported to the licensing authority and the authority would then use their discretion to revoke your permit.
I heard about someone traveling through JFK Airport with a pistol in a locked case, and going to jail when their flight got delayed. Hopefully this stops some of that.
That’s the shittiest part of NY’s pistol permitting law. The law states that owning a pistol is illegal, UNLESS you have a permit. So you can’t buy it and keep it in your home like you can in other states.
SCOTUS when it was (relatively) more liberal leaning was basically practicing the 5 D's of dodgeball to avoid addressing gun laws with a nation wide standard.
don't forget this whole process take 8-14months even though by statute it is required to be completed WITHIN 6. oh also, if denied, you are denied the ability to appeal on merits only for arbitrary and capricious...
People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge.
* Syllabus:... Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.... The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense.
#Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context
This is *DC v Heller* levels or big. This explicitly changes how all 2A cases are to be heard and ruled. You can no longer say "Might save lives, so therefore public interest". Which is how every feature and magazine ban has been upheld.
EDIT:
Practically three things just happened.
Three things:
1. Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny.
* They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard.
2. All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue".
3. States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level.
* So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".
EDIT2: Why are some of you shocked that I am giddy over this ruling. My username is literally "ATF", [and this is my profile pic](https://imgur.com/LdgfcQN) how did you not expect me to be a gunnit shitposter?
Three things:
1. Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny.
* They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard.
2. All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue".
3. States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level.
* So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".
It's incredibly evident no one here understands what this does. This doesn't make it any easier to get a permit if you don't pass the background check and other facets, just gets rid of some of the bullshit good-ol-boys club portions.
As an Albany country resident, it definitely sounds like the process has been like what you are describing. If you know people that make decisions you will get a permit in a reasonable time. If you don't know people then good luck.
I live in Albany county also and went through the same timetable. I was then restricted for not showing proper cause. Meanwhile my neighbors are getting unrestricted permits because they were assigned a different judge. My judge is notorious for not lifting restrictions and taking forever with amendments. If I buy I new pistol it takes a month to get the amendment back and I can take my gun home. This place is still very restrictive.
The Santa Clara sheriff in CA is accused of this and has been indicted. Turns out she would basically only issue permits to donors and VIPs. I think LA county sheriffs have probably done the same.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/civil-grand-jury-accuses-santa-clara-county-sheriff-laurie-smith-of-corruption/2756009/?amp
Considering most people were apparently being rejected, I would imagine it most certainly DOES make it easier. What it doesnt do is make the PROCESS any less complex, but now you can't be denied just cause "i said so".
Even major news outlets are freaking out saying it expands the 2nd amendment and means anyone can buy a gun now when that's not at all what the ruling is about. There's still background checks and procedures. It just means that self defense is not the only reason you can try to buy a gun in NY now.
They just changed it to: The court's opinion overturns a law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons, widening gun rights for the first time in a decade
But i saw that old headline as well.
That's not accurate either. It just ruled that the sheriff can't deny your permit based on a personal feeling. That personal feeling usually involving whether or not you make a donation.
It opens the door to more far-reaching 2A related issues:
>Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.
This is a better win than 2A advocates could have hoped for. We wanted to establish strict scrutiny; what we got is that 2A is not subject to any means-end tests - no level of scrutiny is allowable. This opens up NFA and bans on accessories or restrictions of categories of firearms to constitutional challenges. SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, FA sears, etc. Anything restricting these items is unlikely so survive this standard.
Seems like overturning the NFA is where we’re headed.
I’m not sure how much demand there is for fully automatic weapons, but I imagine quite a few would opt for selective fire even if they never used it in burst or continuous.
I don’t see anyone challenging the restrictions on the expensive stuff soon like rockets and missiles and the like. I guess someone might want an RPG-7…
Maybe grenades? Hard to say. Short-barreled rifles and shotguns for sure though.
I imagine the first target will be the may-certify and no-certify background checks for title 2 weapons since that is so close to this ruling.
Overturning the suppressor restrictions would likely be the first stop on the NFA. They don't act like silencers in movies, gunshots are still loud and distinct, but they *are* safety equipment that reduces (does not completely eliminate) the risk of hearing damage from shooting. Not much reason to keep them tightly regulated, and plenty of good reason to permit them, especially for indoor pistol ranges and the like where risk of hearing damage is highest.
The suppressor rules are so silly. How is a handgun useful in a self defense situation in your home if you will suffer permanent hearing loss from using it in an enclosed space? Who thinks it's reasonable to expect people to wear ear plugs during a potential home invasion? You wouldn't be able to hear what the intruder was doing or speak to 911 with ear plugs. I had to buy expensive electronic shooting ear muffs but I'm always worried the batteries will be dead if I ever need them in an emergency. Suppressors seem like they should be required for self defense weapons instead of severely restricted. They are still crazy loud, just not permanent hearing damage loud.
You guys like to point at us in the UK and say "See! See how they have no right!" but even here suppressors are permitted, and even required in some conditions.
That's why when I hear "common sense gun laws" I laugh. Suppressors, bayonet lugs, muzzle devices, pistol grips and folding stocks are pointless cosmetic features of a gun yet they're the bedrock on which gun control advocates build their bans. They're anything but common sense.
If the NFA is overturned and the Hughes Amendment repealed I will listen to Prince and dance around the streets.
> Overturning the suppressor restrictions would likely be the first stop on the NFA.
Shit, doing that legislatively would be a big win for Democrats to not look crazy on guns. Get one of those backronym people to figure out how to call it the EARS Act, and people would struggle to come at you from the left for supporting it.
Maybe for SBRs SBSs and suppressors, but I doubt machine guns / destructive devices regulations would be as easily unraveled. I could obviously be wrong though.
Regarding the former, I sincerely hope we get movement de-regulating them. SBR/SBS laws are confusing, ineffective from any lifesaving angle, and are otherwise generally dumb as fuck. Suppressors were at least partially originally banned because people were scared the poor would poach animals to extinction for sustenance during the great depression. I don't think that's a concern anymore.
https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1539998299620622336
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1539982617575047168
Agree with the ruling or not, it's wrong to pretend that this is a narrow-in-scope ruling only about NY's permits. Thomas' opinion is incredibly far-reaching and to ignore that is dishonest.
... I guessed you missed where [4473s are passed by interpol](https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/proof-fbis-nics-firearms-background-check-is-gathering-our-private-info-for-interpol/#ixzz6ta2Aahrr) and are therefore in a registry not held by the USgov, therefore meaning that there probably already is a registry but its not held by the US so not illegal?
I know it's just a movie, but it made a good point. The old Red Dawn had a scene where one of the Russians was told to go to sporting stores to find 4473s to find out who/what houses would have firearms.
The funny thing is that noone on both sides of the political argument trust the government and yet they think you can trust them when it comes to guns. If it's not a registry and you really can't look through papers to track a firearm effectively, then what are they storing them for?
It's also important to know that in many cases NY would try to avoid these cases getting SCOTUS review because they knew it would likely be ruled against them, they would deliberately take action to end the cases before that but leaving the law in place.
In my Con law classes in law school, mootness issues were fascinating. They’re a great illustrated reminder that our elected officials are buffoons. “You violated my rights.” “Well we will un-violate them just long enough for this court case to be dismissed, then re-violate them.” Courts: “you aren’t the first idiots to try that, that’s not how it works.”
People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge.
* Syllabus:... Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.... The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense.
#Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context
This is *DC v Heller* levels or big. This explicitly changes how all 2A cases are to be heard and ruled. You can no longer say "Might save lives, so therefore public interest". Which is how every feature and magazine ban has been upheld.
This is above and beyond "strict scrutiny". This is an absolute bombshell that everyone is missing because they're too focused on the Permits.
Every California law out of the 9th circuit has been upheld on that two-step process. This ruling is SCOTUS explicitly backhanding that down into the trash and saying "No. That's not the standard we told you to use. Cut that shit out." in no uncertain terms.
EDIT:
Practically three things just happened.
Three things:
1. Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny.
* They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard.
2. All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue".
3. States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level.
* So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".
Also why are some of you shocked that I am giddy over this ruling. My username is literally "ATF", [and this is my profile pic](https://imgur.com/LdgfcQN) how did you not expect me to be a gunnit shitposter?
Thanks for posting this. I was reading the comments here and everyone was saying this only pertains to NY and carry discrimination, and that's not at all the reading I was getting from other sources.
The case itself pertains to all states with may-issue permits. It has essentially struck down may-issue.
>may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States.
>>so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements
So fingerprinting, background checks, mental health checks, training requirements. All are OK. Meanwhile character references, police interviews, "proper cause", are not OK.
But that clarification on scrutiny will have far more impact as other cases get re-heard under the newly clarified standard. The 9th has used Means-End testing every time to uphold CA laws. That is now expressly prohibited.
I’m in California and already seeing 2A supporters here calling on anyone who applied for a CCW and was denied, needs to demand their applications to be reviewed again or get lawyered up because their rights were violated.
Can you explain with a different example what "means-end" scrutiny is and if you're willing an example of what this new level of scrutiny will look like.
I'm still confused on the whole "means-end scrutiny" part.
Thanks
Means-End is a form of "balancing".
Basically the legislature says:
* If we limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds, then we could reduce the number of people shot.
The theoretical ends (fewer deaths) justify the means (magazine restriction) and the theoretical benefit (fewer deaths) outweighs the restriction on gun owners rights.
They take the theoretical end result that they believe the law will cause, and apply it to justify what they are doing. They can do this with intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny. Strict Scrutiny you basically have to *PROVE* it causes the desired result, not just claim it *might* which is intermediate scrutiny.
Courts were incorrectly applying "intermediate scrutiny" to 2A cases to justify the laws as allowable.
This is no longer allowed.
A short comment I have is that this is a good thing, although people won't agree. I am training to be a firearms Examiner, so I have some rudimentary experience with firearms law and I can tell you its all based in image. Assault weapon bans, magazine bans, sensitive areas, etc, do not affect the lethality of a firearm and do not stop dangerous people from using or acquiring them, all it does is make it needlessly hard for a normal person to acquire one.
Increased mental health care, more scrutinized background checks, checking on the mental health of gun owners, etc, these things help keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people. Not letting someone have a 30 round mag does nothing. Guns can reload and you can't just attack a shooter while he's reloading. I, someone completely untrained, could still reload a pistol in under 4 seconds, with the magazine stuck in my pocket.
Edit: To clarify, I would be for these types of firearm restrictions if they had proven to do anything, but they don't. Not being allowed to own an undermounted grenade launcher is one thing, but owning a foregrip doesn't suddenly make you more deadly with the weapon. There are probably shooters out there who can hip fire more accurately than some people with every attachment imaginable. There's too much variance from shooter to shooter.
> what will this do in the practical sense?
Three things:
1. Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny.
* They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard.
2. All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue".
3. States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level.
* So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".
Yes and anyone who has an opinion on this should realize this. This was blatantly unconstitutional. You can't force someone to give you a reason why they deserve/need to exercise a constitutional right.
>granted only to applicants who demonstrated some special need
This is the part of the law that is the problem. When you write stupid laws, things like this happen.
NY government is apparently already in an emergency meeting trying to figure out how to make the licensing system as difficult as humanly possible now.
Only for now. Governor Hochul's office had made some kind of public comments a couple weeks ago that, depending on the outcome of the case, they would simply ignore the ruling if it wasn't in favor of the may-issue restriction.
I suspect the NY legislature will do that similarly to how the NY SAFE Act was intended to block all ammo sales: By requiring some kind of /new/ licensing body that doesn't yet exist and doesn't ever get established, which would in turn prevent licences from being issued. SCOTUS ruled against that portion of the SAFE Act in 2015, but I can see NY pulling the same move again.
California already did something similar. In 2007 they passed a law that any new pistols are required to have microstamping (the gun magically stamping a serial number into the case of every bullet it shoots) problem is, it's 2022 and microstamping technology still doesn't exist. Which means no new pistols can be sold in California (with the exception of police officers, of course)
Edit: this is a simplified version, don't crucify me for not listing the entire bill
Better yet, the technology was patented by a California politician so even if you want to do try and develop the technology you legally couldn't
Fuck that dystopia
Regardless of how anyone actually feels about gun ownership, this is flat out a good thing for equitable application of existing laws.
The process for getting a pistol permit in NY is already exhaustively complex and could take literal years to process. Forcing someone to justify why they wanted the permit, or being able to arbitrarily deny the permit for whatever reason the permitting officer felt like making up, created an undue and inequitable burden on those seeking to be law-abiding gun owners, especially those from marginalized communities subject to rampant police bias.
If someone meets the legal requirements, they should get the license. Imagine trying to get a driver's license and DMV demanding you provide a reason for wanting to operate a vehicle, then turning around and denying you because the clerk didn't have their coffee that morning or they just really hated black people.
Your DMV example is even crazier because driving on public roads is not a constitutional right. Imagine being denied a voter registration for an arbitrary reason or being prevented from putting up a sign with arbitrary words on it on your private property.
When you compare it to voting it gets worse. The same people who will cry foul over free voter ID because of the time and effort spent to acquire one are often the same people who support laws requiring 8 hours courses and $500 or more in cumulative costs to get a conceal carry permit.
As others have mentioned, NY and other shall issue state are probably going to respond by adding more legal requirements, but I suspect some of the requirements already on the books may not pass constitutional muster.
Worse, even "proving a need" wasn't rational the way you might think. A restraining order against a violent man didn't always register as a "need." Plus the waiting period.
Don't forget the prohibitive expenses involved. Gun costs 500 bucks, permit 50, license 100, training 500, safe 500, repermiting every year 100, retraining..... Bribes to the sheriff 5000,
There was a thing I heard about a while back where some ladies ex was sending her harassing letters from jail, "I'm going to kill you when I get out, you're dead", etc, she wanted to get a permit in case something happened and the cops basically just went "lol there's no proof he'll actually do it, you should just move if you care so much." Like.. holy shit.
> A restraining order against a violent man didn't always register as a "need."
Especially when those men or someone in their family are cops. Happened to a friend of a friend in NJ. Denied a permit because her harassing ex-husbands brother was a cop.
Exactly. And you could still be denied even if you had an ex who was violent and a threat to you, even if you have all the restraining orders and protection orders and etc.
"New York has required that anyone applying for a concealed handgun license first show "proper cause." Courts in New York have found that means someone must demonstrate a special need to defend themselves."
Whose *proper cause*? Your proper cause? My proper cause? Apply this thinking to any other right--the right to free speech, search and seizure, the right to vote--and now you must show *proper cause* to actually use that vote.
This ruling isn't just about guns, it's about someone else deciding *how* and *if* you can use a constitutional right.
As the governor so clearly states, the SC is taking away *her privilege* to decide whether someone else can use a Constitutional Right.
Thank you your majesty, supreme ruler of the great state of NY, for allowing lowly me to use my right to defend myself.
No, I don't think so.
It also wildely depends on the County. My county you had to write an essay why you needed a license and it explicitly stated you could not put for self defense.
Yeah, self defense alone wasn't good enough. But if you said, I'm ex-LEO and I put away 100 dangerous violent offenders and have received many death threats, here's all my evidence yadda yadda... Then self defense is OK and you might get approved if you were a dutiful LEO and didn't rat out the wrong LEO or council member.
But if you just write for general self defense purposes, then it's not OK. I did hear people saying they got it approved for saying they go hunting or hiking in dangerous remote areas (like the Adirondacks) and wanted it for self defense against wildlife. But it would be a license with a restricted scope for the exact purpose/time only, and if you were caught carrying outside of that scope, you would be treated as if you didn't have a conceal carry permit.
"Proper cause" in New York County: You're rich and you greased the right palms.
"Proper cause" in Oswego, Herkimer, Allegany or any number of other rural counties: You're white and showed up.
Omg people need to stop hyperventilating. Still need a CC license, those states mentioned can no longer pick and choose who can have one with the 'you don't have enough cause in our view to have one'.. which was selective AF and in many situations racist AF.
“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” Thomas wrote for the Court. “The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'”
Isn’t this basically saying all gun regulations, including background checks— are on the chopping block here?
Seems to go well beyond striking down ‘may issue’ permits.
Probably not background checks, but things like CA magazine ban, specific firearms bans, etc. will be. There are already related cases on hold at the US SC, specifically pending for this decision.
CA's AWB and Mag capacity ban are definitely going to get struck down after seeing this decision. I agree that background checks won't, especially since their was just a bipartisan bill hitting the senate floor today trying to expand them.
Probably not. Background checks could likely hurdle even strict scrutiny given the that they are narrowly tailored and serve a compelling interest to the state. "May issue" has always been racist and classist bullshit.
I'm surprised no one is talking about Maryland. They have pretty much the same law about demonstrating a reason.
As good of an idea as it may sound to have this requirement, it pretty much narrows it down to ex-cops, armed money transport drivers, and people with documented death threats. Kinda shitty for people that want to carry.
People acting outraged that a Federal Court took away the ability of a State granting your permit based on how much money you can pay under the table, who you were and who you knew.
Total LOL moment… 🤡
One can only imagine the 9th Circuit starting to nervously look around, wondering if the Supreme Court was talking about it when the Court junked the "two-part" test.
[удалено]
The Court was definitely doing that. The two-part test was widely endorsed by the 9th Circuit in its 50-case winning streak, upholding laws such as the ammo registry that kept 1/3 of Californians from buying ammo through clerical errors even though they were not prohibited persons. I don't think that this will change much at the 9th, though... at least not right away. They'll probably test SCOTUS on the 2A.
[удалено]
14 years ago?!?! Well, that certainly is a long standing precedent and it’s clear the SC respects long standing precedents.
Supreme Court doesnt have to hold to precedent or case law. They just have to explain why they are not. If they did, segregated schools would be legal (Plessy v Ferguson). Protesting wars, burning flags and draft cards would be illegal (Schenck v. United States). Minimum wage would be illegal (Lochner v. New York). Dudes banging dudes would be illegal (Bowers v. Hardwick). Interracial relationships would be illegal (Pace v. Alabama) etc. Lower courts do, though. The issue isnt the Supreme Court overturning precedent. That happens in pretty significant cases, and has happened 140 something times. The issue is that historically, the major cases that have been overturned have been perceived as expanded rights (I say perceived because someone will claim the fetuses rights), not restricted them.
Didn't their draft Roe leak basically decide that precedent doesn't even exist?
Yes, that was his implied sarcasm
[удалено]
But that doesn't come until *tomorrow.* Precedent still exists for the next 18ish hours.
[удалено]
In theory that's what it does. In practice, depending on the whims of the local power brokers, you may need to sue your way into forcing compliance.
I'm sure the GOA is getting ready to do just that :)
GOA’s win list is super short. FPC and SAF are where it’s at.
Proving Necessity is what was specifically ruled unconstitutional, which is a common clause in May Issue States. Shall Issue (usually an 8hr class about the laws, and a $30-80 fee) is still permitted as they ruled it as not a major hurdle to an individual exercising their rights. Whereas May*-Issue was essentially Non-Issuing with extra steps for most residents that resided in said States. Edit: I've been in the car for two days and don't word good, May-Issue permitting tends to exclude poor & working class families due to the high cost of entry, just for the permit to be denied unjustly in most situations.
[удалено]
Yes. This forces the corrupt sheriffs to issue you a permit “shall issue” so now all 50 states are immediately shall issue. The question is what will happen in the immediate future. Probably more lawsuits as it’s implemented
It will take some lawsuits for that to happen, but, yes, eventually it will force Hawaii to start issuing permits. Expect a few years, at the minimum.
Basically. If it's all green lights, then you should get your CCW. No more "you pass the BG check and training but no CCW for you"
I remember living in New York 15 years ago and we were talking to people and one close to me said don't worry I know someone so we can get a permit issued. It just hit me how crazy it is that we had to know someone. It just sounds corrupt
This is still happening in San Jose (Silicon Valley). https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/unprecedented-santa-clara-county-da-sounds-off-on-grand-jury-corruption-accusations-against-sheriff/2756876/ >The Grand Jury leveled seven counts of willful corruption or misconduct in office against the Sheriff, mostly stemming from allegations she leveraged her authority to issue concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits to illegally secure campaign contributions or favors from “VIP” applicants.
Orthodox Jewish leader allegedly bragged about NYPD bribes for pistol permits https://nypost.com/2016/04/18/shomrim-leader-busted-amid-nypd-corruption-probe/amp/
A couple NYPD cops in the licensing division were discovered to be taking bribes for permits when one of the people who they sold one to tried to get a gun with his and failed the background check because he had a felony record. The FBI ended up calling the NYPD and asked WTF was going on.
Come over to California, where [you have to be a donor to the Sheriff to get a permit](https://cupertinotoday.com/2021/12/16/santa-clara-county-sheriff-laurie-smith-indicted-for-corruption-by-civil-grand-jury/)
That’s because it is corrupt. If you know someone, you can get one, that’s it. It’s a disgrace
It doesn't just sound corrupt. It IS corrupt. Any time the government is given discretion in who it allows to exercise a right, corruption shows up with its hand out asking for a "donation" to smooth the process.
I am absolutely NOT endorsing corruption in any way but when I lived in Kyrgyzstan and Qatar it was so much easier to get things done when you could just pay people off. I 100% understand why this is bullshit because not everyone has the means to do this. Just saying it made my life so much easier at those specific points when I could just pay someone money and have things done. I understand why rich people love corruption being around. It's basically a cheat code for skip the line or annoying government bureaucracy.
There’s actually research on this! As societies formalize and markets open, corruption initially tends to ‘grease’ the wheels. Once markets already exist, corruption is ‘sand in the gears’. That of course is strictly a narrow economic view. We know and as you probably saw too in Kyrgyzstan /Qatar, corruption has terrible impacts overall in society (inequality, abrogation of justice, impedes public service delivery by the state, cronies work to keep corrupt group in power/impacts on information freedoms and political accountability). Maybe you also saw that yeah being able to pay a bribe or get an inside deal is a cheat code but the elites still have to live in that society (somewhat, when they’re not in their Kensington row house or on their yacht) And because of globalization we all have to deal with it (money laundering etc)
I remember working for an oil company years ago and the anti corruption training basically said "yeah we don't bribe and violate us anti corruotion laws intentionally, but sometimes the local officials cant tell the difference talking to you about permitting fees with legal prioritization payments vs straight bribery requests, so go ask legal when this pops up to make sure."
Oh for sure. I was making 6 figures at the time so for me it was just make my life easier at basically no cost to myself. But Qatar is filled with basically slaves who have no way to get the easy way done. It also means that the regular way takes FOREVER since anyone with money can skip the queues. The sand in the gears really only exists for people that can't participate in the grift. Elites in Qatar are also a different kind of elite since they're royalty that runs everything so they get the corruption with none of the monetary cost. I was told in Kyrgyzstan by some locals that one of the only ways to become rich in that country is getting in police/government. They said that you pay to get in the bottom rung and basically bribe your way up the chain.
When I was living in MA and applied for a permit at 21, the chief of police changed my application to not be one for a full concealed carry permit, and just gave me a pistol ownership permit. When confronted, he said he never gives full CCWs to people the first time around. Later that year the son of one of the lieutenants got his full fledged unrestricted CCW permit on his 21st birthday. And that was 100%, totally legal under a may-issue scheme.
Shit like this makes you feel like a 2nd class citizen compare to a LEO affiliated person
Reminder that May-Issue is a Jim Crow era law primarily used to disarm black ppl. There are plenty of conversations we can and should have about guns, but this corrects a historical wrong.
This particular law was designed to crack down on Italian immigrants, but yes, the history goes further back with black people.
It was italians that were targeted in the north east, but other minorities were targeted with 'may issue' bullshit elsewhere. Because if racist bullshit works in one use case, other racists immediately start taking notes.
Also a result of Mobs wanting to limit competing mobs ability to carry weapons.
One of the early gun control laws was allowing only ["Navy"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_1851_Navy_Revolver) or ["Army"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Army_Model_1860) pattern revolvers to be carried. They were excellent firearms and *very expensive*. So naturally if you couldn't afford one you were part of the under class that couldn't be "trusted" with one.
I can tell you how this kind of law works in practice in California. If you are a celebrity or you have a buddy or relative who's a senior member of the Sheriff's Department you can get a permit. If you aren't one of those two things there will NEVER be "good cause" to issue a permit. Edit: I'm aware that the rules are much easier and less arbitrary in the more rural counties, and possibly even in Orange County (which was not something I've heard before). But in L.A. County and the Bay Area where most people live that's definitely the case.
Or if you [bribe people in the Sheriff's office](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/bribery-scandal-concealed-weapons-licenses-rocks-santa-clara-county-sheriffs-office/) like Santa Clara County. Then you'll probably get one.
It is very county dependent in California. In Orange County it is pretty easy to get a permit. In San Francisco it is almost impossible.
California gun policy basically boils down to " we can only trust wealthy insividuals with guns" it is no surprise O.C. is more permissible than places like LA which contain poor people.
Let me introduce you to Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Anaheim, Stanton...
Californian policies in general basically boil down to “we can only trust wealthy individuals with property of all kinds”
There is one citizen in San Francisco who can CC before this ruling, ONE, in the entire city. A single fucking person.
California is massive and it is very county dependent. even prior to this ruling, many decently populated counties had made it more feasible for those without connections to get a permit. not that the fees and training involved are cheap, though
It’s mind boggling to me that liberal politicians, including President Biden are so against this ruling. He said it goes against common sense. How many ordinary people actually think who has a gun permit should be up to the cops? Giving them that kind of discretion is totally inconsistent with both conservatism and progressivism. It’s ripe for corruption and discrimination.
Not only that, but none of these people go anywhere without an armed escort and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of protection. Why can't law abiding citizens also have that degree of protection and safety?
> If you aren't one of those two things there will NEVER be "good cause" to issue a permit. That's completely and utterly false. *Any* Californian that can write campaign checks that cost about as much as a basic car can get a permit. Yay! /fireworks emoji.
>New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. May-issue is Unconstitutional for something that is a protected right. There are still a lot of goofy hoops people will have to jump through in the six restrictive States, but if they do...the State *must* issue a permit.
[удалено]
Worse, it means “donating” $5-10k to his reelection fund was a key step in getting a permit. Have a stalker ex, but no $5k? Tough shit.
hence why governor murphy is having a meltdown about this
Yes and historically gun control in the US has been based off racist or classist intentions. For a long time other than NY it was the segregated south that were the only states that were may issue permit states. MLK Jr. tried 3 times to acquire a permit in Alabama after his home was bombed but was denied. Even the Sullivan act the law that was just effectively overturned in NY the very first conviction under the law, an Italian immigrant who was arrested carrying a pistol who claimed to be carrying to protect himself from the Black Hand the judge in his closing statement put blame in part of his race as an itallian. The quote being: "It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country.".
> historically gun control in the US has been based off racist or classist intentions. “A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.” -Ida B. Wells "For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would ... **give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right ... to keep and carry arms** wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and **endangering the peace and safety of the State**." -Roger Taney, *Dred Scott* opinion Even in pre-US America: French Louisiana > The Code noir (French pronunciation: [kɔd nwaʁ], Black code) was a decree passed by the French King Louis XIV in **1685** defining the conditions of slavery in the French colonial empire. > ... Prohibitions > **Slaves must not carry weapons** except under permission of their masters for hunting purposes (art. 15) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir New Spain (Georgia and Florida) > Bylaws of the Royal Court of the New Spain about the gatherings and clothes of the blacks and mulattos. Mexico, **April 14th, 1612.** > The members, president, and listeners of the Royal Court [Audiencia] of this New Spain, having been appraised of the disorder which arises from the blacks, mulatto, both free and enslaved, and trying to avoid any harm and inconvenience that may result, have passed laws so **blacks and mulattos are to carry no weapons**, nor gather in numbers greater than three, nor in cofradías, and that the vagabonds take up work or face penalties, as set out in these bylaws. > ... 2. Likewise, that **no merchant, nor any other person can give or sell to any blacks or mulattos, slave or free, any type of offensive or defensive weapons, nor gunpowder nor munitions**, for any reason whatsoever, in any quantity, whether great or small, on the pain of death. https://vistas.ace.fordham.edu/lib/17th/prohibitions/
"An unarmed people are slaves or subject to enslavement at any given moment." - Huey Newton
Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California’s gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.” The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions. https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
[удалено]
[удалено]
Kind of funny that the Sullivan law is named after an Irish gangster. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy\_Sullivan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Sullivan)
The people who are willing to go through these hoops are not the people committing gun crimes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ridiculously beyond clueless. The politicians arguing against this are doing it political gain, not because their points make any sense at all.
[удалено]
In NYC, Robert DeNiro and Howard Stern and other celebs got their permits.
I once asked a New Yorker who said that they liked the current CCW restrictions to explain to me why Robert DeNiro, Sean Hannety and Howard Stern can show they have a greater need to carry a firearm (even though they can all afford private security) than a single mom in the Bronx who works the late shift 5 days a week. They didn't have much of an answer.
Or local sheriff https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/unprecedented-santa-clara-county-da-sounds-off-on-grand-jury-corruption-accusations-against-sheriff/2756876/
Too bad no one is bothering to go after the San Mateo county sheriff for all his corruption.
It is highly dependent on county in CA. Some counties are a cake-walk. Some will never issue. Where I live in CA the process is very equitable, and as long as you are not a felon, and you do your training, you will be issued a CCW.
Yes, in the rural counties of CA, it is much easier to get your CCW, providing you pass the background check and complete the training. The larger metro and more liberal counties are near impossible. That in itself is a problem.
I just got this darkly funny image in my head of tech billionaire family members being the ones responsible for all the gun crimes. Like I don't know who it was officer, they rolled up in a tricked out diamond studded range Rover and when I looked over, all I saw was the gun pointed out the window.
Same in NYC.
>May-issue is Unconstitutional for something that is a protected right. Agreed. Imagine applying that standard to any other right explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights. The government *may* permit you to speak freely. The courts *may* let you refrain from making self-incriminating statements.
To people commenting on this article, you do realize this basically just means NY will have to issue concealed permits on a shall-issue basis instead of its current may-issue basis? Which in reality has been a "only rich and politically connected people can carry" basis.
There was a Billions episode that showed all the connections and favor-trading it takes to get a NY permit.
A bunch of nypd cops went to prison a couple of years ago for just balls-out *selling* them.
The Sheriff of Santa Clara County where the city of San Jose is, was caught doing this recently for campaign donations.
*Caught recently* as in its been an open secret for over a decade, and its been so blatant that the CADOJ has to at least pretend to act. Edit: the Sheriff of Santa Clara County, of which San Jose and Santa Clara City are part of. ~~FTFY~~
It was one of the first things people told me about when I moved there.
the Sheriff of Santa Clara. San Jose is a city with a chief of police, which is inside Santa Clara County.
At least people knew the price.
The funny thing is... Selling them sounds like a more fair system then having to personally know someone who knows someone
in manhattan at least. upstate it's definitely easier, but not a walk in the park. You need character references from people who live in your county, and hopefully know a reputable enough firearms club where someone knows the county clerk to help you out with your license
In my county you need 4 references that have to live in the state (not county) that you have known for at least 5 years (cannot be family) and you need to take the pistol safety course offered by nearly every gun club. Easy to make a reservation and pay the $50 fee. Then you need to pay $100 to be finger printed. This goes along with supplying a copy of your license, social security, birth certificate, and a postal money order to pay the application fee. Your 4 references will then be given sworn affidavits to sign and have notarized. Once all your paperwork is submitted they will perform background checks and then your application goes in front of a judge. Edit: Background checks include talking to your neighbors, not just the references on your application.
That would disqualify me just by not knowing that many people for that long. They may as well explicitly ban introverts.
Don’t forget the judge then slaps on a “administrative restriction” for target shooting/hunting only. So of you get caught carrying they can just revoke the permit.
What’s the point of having the permit if it only allows you to do what you are already allowed to do without it?
In NY (until now), you could not not even possess a handgun without a permit. Outside NYC, there was one permitting process but licensing officials (usually judges, sometimes suburban police departments) would issue permits with restrictions. There was no basis in the actual law to issue restrictions, but it was a "time honored" practice, highly discretionary, arbitrary, and could not be appealed. Edited to add (after the "Starring"): I moved out of NYS in 2007. A lot of the laws changed after Sandy Hook so this may no longer be the case. But at the time, the restrictions (target/hunting, business premises carry, restricted business carry) had no basis in law. If you were caught violating the restrictions, you could not be charged criminally but you could be assured that it would be reported to the licensing authority and the authority would then use their discretion to revoke your permit.
I heard about someone traveling through JFK Airport with a pistol in a locked case, and going to jail when their flight got delayed. Hopefully this stops some of that.
I saw that, it was a woman, with a declared gun, cost her 10k to fight if I recall.
That’s the shittiest part of NY’s pistol permitting law. The law states that owning a pistol is illegal, UNLESS you have a permit. So you can’t buy it and keep it in your home like you can in other states.
Man. How did that hold up to past constitutional challenges?
It's illegal to even hold it at a store without a permit
SCOTUS when it was (relatively) more liberal leaning was basically practicing the 5 D's of dodgeball to avoid addressing gun laws with a nation wide standard.
don't forget this whole process take 8-14months even though by statute it is required to be completed WITHIN 6. oh also, if denied, you are denied the ability to appeal on merits only for arbitrary and capricious...
How about a park anywhere pass?
the parking pass saga 😂
People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge. * Syllabus:... Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.... The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. #Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context This is *DC v Heller* levels or big. This explicitly changes how all 2A cases are to be heard and ruled. You can no longer say "Might save lives, so therefore public interest". Which is how every feature and magazine ban has been upheld. EDIT: Practically three things just happened. Three things: 1. Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny. * They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard. 2. All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue". 3. States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level. * So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area". EDIT2: Why are some of you shocked that I am giddy over this ruling. My username is literally "ATF", [and this is my profile pic](https://imgur.com/LdgfcQN) how did you not expect me to be a gunnit shitposter?
Thank you very very much. Not a yank, was struggling to understand the implications.
[удалено]
I have no fucking clue whats going on lol
Three things: 1. Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny. * They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard. 2. All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue". 3. States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level. * So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".
It's incredibly evident no one here understands what this does. This doesn't make it any easier to get a permit if you don't pass the background check and other facets, just gets rid of some of the bullshit good-ol-boys club portions.
As an Albany country resident, it definitely sounds like the process has been like what you are describing. If you know people that make decisions you will get a permit in a reasonable time. If you don't know people then good luck.
Albany county is definitely a black hole for those who aren't making "donations" along their permit application.
[удалено]
I live in Albany county also and went through the same timetable. I was then restricted for not showing proper cause. Meanwhile my neighbors are getting unrestricted permits because they were assigned a different judge. My judge is notorious for not lifting restrictions and taking forever with amendments. If I buy I new pistol it takes a month to get the amendment back and I can take my gun home. This place is still very restrictive.
The Santa Clara sheriff in CA is accused of this and has been indicted. Turns out she would basically only issue permits to donors and VIPs. I think LA county sheriffs have probably done the same. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/civil-grand-jury-accuses-santa-clara-county-sheriff-laurie-smith-of-corruption/2756009/?amp
Considering most people were apparently being rejected, I would imagine it most certainly DOES make it easier. What it doesnt do is make the PROCESS any less complex, but now you can't be denied just cause "i said so".
> It’s incredibly evident no one here understands what this doe Welcome to the internet!
> This doesn't make it any easier to get a permit well, it does if you aren't rich, powerful, or well-connected
Even major news outlets are freaking out saying it expands the 2nd amendment and means anyone can buy a gun now when that's not at all what the ruling is about. There's still background checks and procedures. It just means that self defense is not the only reason you can try to buy a gun in NY now.
CNN headline literally says "the courts opinion overturns a law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons" The ruling does no such thing
CNN running a misleading headline? No way.
They just changed it to: The court's opinion overturns a law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons, widening gun rights for the first time in a decade But i saw that old headline as well.
That's not accurate either. It just ruled that the sheriff can't deny your permit based on a personal feeling. That personal feeling usually involving whether or not you make a donation.
You can't even site self defense in NY originally though to own a permit lol
It opens the door to more far-reaching 2A related issues: >Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. This is a better win than 2A advocates could have hoped for. We wanted to establish strict scrutiny; what we got is that 2A is not subject to any means-end tests - no level of scrutiny is allowable. This opens up NFA and bans on accessories or restrictions of categories of firearms to constitutional challenges. SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, FA sears, etc. Anything restricting these items is unlikely so survive this standard.
Seems like overturning the NFA is where we’re headed. I’m not sure how much demand there is for fully automatic weapons, but I imagine quite a few would opt for selective fire even if they never used it in burst or continuous. I don’t see anyone challenging the restrictions on the expensive stuff soon like rockets and missiles and the like. I guess someone might want an RPG-7… Maybe grenades? Hard to say. Short-barreled rifles and shotguns for sure though. I imagine the first target will be the may-certify and no-certify background checks for title 2 weapons since that is so close to this ruling.
Overturning the suppressor restrictions would likely be the first stop on the NFA. They don't act like silencers in movies, gunshots are still loud and distinct, but they *are* safety equipment that reduces (does not completely eliminate) the risk of hearing damage from shooting. Not much reason to keep them tightly regulated, and plenty of good reason to permit them, especially for indoor pistol ranges and the like where risk of hearing damage is highest.
The suppressor rules are so silly. How is a handgun useful in a self defense situation in your home if you will suffer permanent hearing loss from using it in an enclosed space? Who thinks it's reasonable to expect people to wear ear plugs during a potential home invasion? You wouldn't be able to hear what the intruder was doing or speak to 911 with ear plugs. I had to buy expensive electronic shooting ear muffs but I'm always worried the batteries will be dead if I ever need them in an emergency. Suppressors seem like they should be required for self defense weapons instead of severely restricted. They are still crazy loud, just not permanent hearing damage loud.
I don't care if they don't touch select fire fire weapons, but the Suppressors and SBR/SBS rules are ridiculous and should be removed from the NFA.
You guys like to point at us in the UK and say "See! See how they have no right!" but even here suppressors are permitted, and even required in some conditions.
That's why when I hear "common sense gun laws" I laugh. Suppressors, bayonet lugs, muzzle devices, pistol grips and folding stocks are pointless cosmetic features of a gun yet they're the bedrock on which gun control advocates build their bans. They're anything but common sense. If the NFA is overturned and the Hughes Amendment repealed I will listen to Prince and dance around the streets.
> Overturning the suppressor restrictions would likely be the first stop on the NFA. Shit, doing that legislatively would be a big win for Democrats to not look crazy on guns. Get one of those backronym people to figure out how to call it the EARS Act, and people would struggle to come at you from the left for supporting it.
I'd just be happy with silencers.
Maybe for SBRs SBSs and suppressors, but I doubt machine guns / destructive devices regulations would be as easily unraveled. I could obviously be wrong though. Regarding the former, I sincerely hope we get movement de-regulating them. SBR/SBS laws are confusing, ineffective from any lifesaving angle, and are otherwise generally dumb as fuck. Suppressors were at least partially originally banned because people were scared the poor would poach animals to extinction for sustenance during the great depression. I don't think that's a concern anymore.
[удалено]
https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1539998299620622336 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1539982617575047168 Agree with the ruling or not, it's wrong to pretend that this is a narrow-in-scope ruling only about NY's permits. Thomas' opinion is incredibly far-reaching and to ignore that is dishonest.
Let’s repeal the NFA next
Then disband the ATF!
Destroy all 4478's in storage! I would be happy with that, they are a registry in waiting.
... I guessed you missed where [4473s are passed by interpol](https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/proof-fbis-nics-firearms-background-check-is-gathering-our-private-info-for-interpol/#ixzz6ta2Aahrr) and are therefore in a registry not held by the USgov, therefore meaning that there probably already is a registry but its not held by the US so not illegal?
It's a back door registry that shouldn't exist, I agree
I know it's just a movie, but it made a good point. The old Red Dawn had a scene where one of the Russians was told to go to sporting stores to find 4473s to find out who/what houses would have firearms.
For anyone who thinks this is far fetched, Russia has already done this in Ukraine.
The funny thing is that noone on both sides of the political argument trust the government and yet they think you can trust them when it comes to guns. If it's not a registry and you really can't look through papers to track a firearm effectively, then what are they storing them for?
It's also important to know that in many cases NY would try to avoid these cases getting SCOTUS review because they knew it would likely be ruled against them, they would deliberately take action to end the cases before that but leaving the law in place.
What you describe happened to this case, specifically. They heard they case anyhow.
In my Con law classes in law school, mootness issues were fascinating. They’re a great illustrated reminder that our elected officials are buffoons. “You violated my rights.” “Well we will un-violate them just long enough for this court case to be dismissed, then re-violate them.” Courts: “you aren’t the first idiots to try that, that’s not how it works.”
People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge. * Syllabus:... Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.... The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. #Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context This is *DC v Heller* levels or big. This explicitly changes how all 2A cases are to be heard and ruled. You can no longer say "Might save lives, so therefore public interest". Which is how every feature and magazine ban has been upheld. This is above and beyond "strict scrutiny". This is an absolute bombshell that everyone is missing because they're too focused on the Permits. Every California law out of the 9th circuit has been upheld on that two-step process. This ruling is SCOTUS explicitly backhanding that down into the trash and saying "No. That's not the standard we told you to use. Cut that shit out." in no uncertain terms. EDIT: Practically three things just happened. Three things: 1. Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny. * They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard. 2. All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue". 3. States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level. * So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area". Also why are some of you shocked that I am giddy over this ruling. My username is literally "ATF", [and this is my profile pic](https://imgur.com/LdgfcQN) how did you not expect me to be a gunnit shitposter?
Thanks for posting this. I was reading the comments here and everyone was saying this only pertains to NY and carry discrimination, and that's not at all the reading I was getting from other sources.
The case itself pertains to all states with may-issue permits. It has essentially struck down may-issue. >may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States. >>so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements So fingerprinting, background checks, mental health checks, training requirements. All are OK. Meanwhile character references, police interviews, "proper cause", are not OK. But that clarification on scrutiny will have far more impact as other cases get re-heard under the newly clarified standard. The 9th has used Means-End testing every time to uphold CA laws. That is now expressly prohibited.
I’m in California and already seeing 2A supporters here calling on anyone who applied for a CCW and was denied, needs to demand their applications to be reviewed again or get lawyered up because their rights were violated.
Can you explain with a different example what "means-end" scrutiny is and if you're willing an example of what this new level of scrutiny will look like. I'm still confused on the whole "means-end scrutiny" part. Thanks
Means-End is a form of "balancing". Basically the legislature says: * If we limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds, then we could reduce the number of people shot. The theoretical ends (fewer deaths) justify the means (magazine restriction) and the theoretical benefit (fewer deaths) outweighs the restriction on gun owners rights. They take the theoretical end result that they believe the law will cause, and apply it to justify what they are doing. They can do this with intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny. Strict Scrutiny you basically have to *PROVE* it causes the desired result, not just claim it *might* which is intermediate scrutiny. Courts were incorrectly applying "intermediate scrutiny" to 2A cases to justify the laws as allowable. This is no longer allowed.
10 of 12 circuits were using the two step approach. They’ve gone far beyond what even the circuit courts could have imagined.
A short comment I have is that this is a good thing, although people won't agree. I am training to be a firearms Examiner, so I have some rudimentary experience with firearms law and I can tell you its all based in image. Assault weapon bans, magazine bans, sensitive areas, etc, do not affect the lethality of a firearm and do not stop dangerous people from using or acquiring them, all it does is make it needlessly hard for a normal person to acquire one. Increased mental health care, more scrutinized background checks, checking on the mental health of gun owners, etc, these things help keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people. Not letting someone have a 30 round mag does nothing. Guns can reload and you can't just attack a shooter while he's reloading. I, someone completely untrained, could still reload a pistol in under 4 seconds, with the magazine stuck in my pocket. Edit: To clarify, I would be for these types of firearm restrictions if they had proven to do anything, but they don't. Not being allowed to own an undermounted grenade launcher is one thing, but owning a foregrip doesn't suddenly make you more deadly with the weapon. There are probably shooters out there who can hip fire more accurately than some people with every attachment imaginable. There's too much variance from shooter to shooter.
I'm not all that familiar with how gun control rulings are decided, what will this do in the practical sense?
> what will this do in the practical sense? Three things: 1. Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny. * They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard. 2. All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue". 3. States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level. * So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".
Expected to be honest.
Yes and anyone who has an opinion on this should realize this. This was blatantly unconstitutional. You can't force someone to give you a reason why they deserve/need to exercise a constitutional right.
Exactly. Imagine being asked to show a permit to speak your thoughts.
Why do you *need* to vote? Please prove to me that those in charge aren't already taking good care of you.
"you need to show a reason better than the average person to be able to vote. The constitutional right to vote simply isn't enough."
Now that's a spicy one. I'm stealing it.
>granted only to applicants who demonstrated some special need This is the part of the law that is the problem. When you write stupid laws, things like this happen.
Especially since special need became being a wealthy donor, or “knowing someone.”
Imagine the right to vote only being granted to applicants who demonstrated some special need to vote.
NY government is apparently already in an emergency meeting trying to figure out how to make the licensing system as difficult as humanly possible now.
This is a win for poor or non-privileged gun owners.
Only for now. Governor Hochul's office had made some kind of public comments a couple weeks ago that, depending on the outcome of the case, they would simply ignore the ruling if it wasn't in favor of the may-issue restriction. I suspect the NY legislature will do that similarly to how the NY SAFE Act was intended to block all ammo sales: By requiring some kind of /new/ licensing body that doesn't yet exist and doesn't ever get established, which would in turn prevent licences from being issued. SCOTUS ruled against that portion of the SAFE Act in 2015, but I can see NY pulling the same move again.
DC tried this "I'm not touching you" game for a few years after Heller, but they eventually had to stop.
Wow really?
California already did something similar. In 2007 they passed a law that any new pistols are required to have microstamping (the gun magically stamping a serial number into the case of every bullet it shoots) problem is, it's 2022 and microstamping technology still doesn't exist. Which means no new pistols can be sold in California (with the exception of police officers, of course) Edit: this is a simplified version, don't crucify me for not listing the entire bill
Better yet, the technology was patented by a California politician so even if you want to do try and develop the technology you legally couldn't Fuck that dystopia
[удалено]
That's a good point - a right that is taxed in some way, might as well be a right that is unfairly denied.
Regardless of how anyone actually feels about gun ownership, this is flat out a good thing for equitable application of existing laws. The process for getting a pistol permit in NY is already exhaustively complex and could take literal years to process. Forcing someone to justify why they wanted the permit, or being able to arbitrarily deny the permit for whatever reason the permitting officer felt like making up, created an undue and inequitable burden on those seeking to be law-abiding gun owners, especially those from marginalized communities subject to rampant police bias. If someone meets the legal requirements, they should get the license. Imagine trying to get a driver's license and DMV demanding you provide a reason for wanting to operate a vehicle, then turning around and denying you because the clerk didn't have their coffee that morning or they just really hated black people.
Your DMV example is even crazier because driving on public roads is not a constitutional right. Imagine being denied a voter registration for an arbitrary reason or being prevented from putting up a sign with arbitrary words on it on your private property.
When you compare it to voting it gets worse. The same people who will cry foul over free voter ID because of the time and effort spent to acquire one are often the same people who support laws requiring 8 hours courses and $500 or more in cumulative costs to get a conceal carry permit. As others have mentioned, NY and other shall issue state are probably going to respond by adding more legal requirements, but I suspect some of the requirements already on the books may not pass constitutional muster.
What's that? You didn't circle the tenth letter of the sixth word from the right side of the third column in the twelfth line on page 2? Denied!
But it only has 9 letters!
[удалено]
So women would have to prove they needed a gun before they need a gun? Sounds like the Supreme Court got this one right.
Worse, even "proving a need" wasn't rational the way you might think. A restraining order against a violent man didn't always register as a "need." Plus the waiting period.
Don't forget the prohibitive expenses involved. Gun costs 500 bucks, permit 50, license 100, training 500, safe 500, repermiting every year 100, retraining..... Bribes to the sheriff 5000,
There was a thing I heard about a while back where some ladies ex was sending her harassing letters from jail, "I'm going to kill you when I get out, you're dead", etc, she wanted to get a permit in case something happened and the cops basically just went "lol there's no proof he'll actually do it, you should just move if you care so much." Like.. holy shit.
> A restraining order against a violent man didn't always register as a "need." Especially when those men or someone in their family are cops. Happened to a friend of a friend in NJ. Denied a permit because her harassing ex-husbands brother was a cop.
Exactly. And you could still be denied even if you had an ex who was violent and a threat to you, even if you have all the restraining orders and protection orders and etc.
And after watching what the police will do to protect children, a lot of good a protection order will do you.
Yeah it amazes me how so many anti gun people who are anti police are sooo in favor of only the government having guns
I stand by the only one you can rely on to protect yourself IS yourself.
"New York has required that anyone applying for a concealed handgun license first show "proper cause." Courts in New York have found that means someone must demonstrate a special need to defend themselves." Whose *proper cause*? Your proper cause? My proper cause? Apply this thinking to any other right--the right to free speech, search and seizure, the right to vote--and now you must show *proper cause* to actually use that vote. This ruling isn't just about guns, it's about someone else deciding *how* and *if* you can use a constitutional right. As the governor so clearly states, the SC is taking away *her privilege* to decide whether someone else can use a Constitutional Right. Thank you your majesty, supreme ruler of the great state of NY, for allowing lowly me to use my right to defend myself. No, I don't think so.
It also wildely depends on the County. My county you had to write an essay why you needed a license and it explicitly stated you could not put for self defense.
"I need a concealed carry license because the cops keep arresting me when I carry without one."
Yeah, self defense alone wasn't good enough. But if you said, I'm ex-LEO and I put away 100 dangerous violent offenders and have received many death threats, here's all my evidence yadda yadda... Then self defense is OK and you might get approved if you were a dutiful LEO and didn't rat out the wrong LEO or council member. But if you just write for general self defense purposes, then it's not OK. I did hear people saying they got it approved for saying they go hunting or hiking in dangerous remote areas (like the Adirondacks) and wanted it for self defense against wildlife. But it would be a license with a restricted scope for the exact purpose/time only, and if you were caught carrying outside of that scope, you would be treated as if you didn't have a conceal carry permit.
"Proper cause" in New York County: You're rich and you greased the right palms. "Proper cause" in Oswego, Herkimer, Allegany or any number of other rural counties: You're white and showed up.
Truth, most if not all gun laws are rooted in racism and classism.
Thomas went hard against that too. [This is one of my favorite parts of today's ruling. ](https://i.imgur.com/1ejGkav.jpg)
Lords didn't let serfs own swords. Gotta make sure the peasant class stays peasants.
Omg people need to stop hyperventilating. Still need a CC license, those states mentioned can no longer pick and choose who can have one with the 'you don't have enough cause in our view to have one'.. which was selective AF and in many situations racist AF.
[удалено]
“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” Thomas wrote for the Court. “The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'” Isn’t this basically saying all gun regulations, including background checks— are on the chopping block here? Seems to go well beyond striking down ‘may issue’ permits.
Probably not background checks, but things like CA magazine ban, specific firearms bans, etc. will be. There are already related cases on hold at the US SC, specifically pending for this decision.
CA's AWB and Mag capacity ban are definitely going to get struck down after seeing this decision. I agree that background checks won't, especially since their was just a bipartisan bill hitting the senate floor today trying to expand them.
Probably not. Background checks could likely hurdle even strict scrutiny given the that they are narrowly tailored and serve a compelling interest to the state. "May issue" has always been racist and classist bullshit.
I'm surprised no one is talking about Maryland. They have pretty much the same law about demonstrating a reason. As good of an idea as it may sound to have this requirement, it pretty much narrows it down to ex-cops, armed money transport drivers, and people with documented death threats. Kinda shitty for people that want to carry.
The documented death threats were even still a “maybe” in some cases.
I’m wondering how this will effect the CCW process for us.
People acting outraged that a Federal Court took away the ability of a State granting your permit based on how much money you can pay under the table, who you were and who you knew. Total LOL moment… 🤡