Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 4914
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#16

Post by Paladin »

philip964 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:27 pm
Rafe wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:57 pm
parabelum wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:41 pm Biden is “deeply disappointed” …

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden- ... sappointed
I had a cognitive slip. I read that as: Biden is "deeply disappointing"...
Lol

This is such great news!!

Think of it in a few years reciprocity in NYC!

Let the crying start in NY.

Twitter slams Gov. Hochul’s anger over SCOTUS gun ruling: ‘Sorry the Constitution happened to you’

https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-s ... n-happened
LOL, The criminals (e.g. Hochul, Biden) are panicked that the law abiding citizens will be able to carry the best defense. I mean it was ok that criminals like Cuomo served 10 YEARS as Governor... and 3 years as Attorney General... but law abiding people possessing the tools for self defense is in Hochul's own words "Frightful"...

I for one want the criminals to be scared. I want them to leave our great country alone, in peace.
JOIN NRA TODAY!
NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life, VCDL Member
LTC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6988
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#17

Post by puma guy »

Bless her little air filled pointed head. She refers to laws going back to our founding fathers as the basis for NY's right to prohibit self defense firearm carry. Every home in what would become the United States at the time our founding fathers were writing the Constitution had at least one firearm and continued right up to the beginning of the 20th century. NY's laws were to control gangs and their ability to have weapons. She's as ignorant about NY laws as she is about the United States Constitution. I just wish every once in a while a journalist would called out idiots like her in public and make people
aware of how stupid politicians really are.
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
User avatar

Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 4914
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#18

Post by Paladin »

The Sullivan Act (1911) is the law Hochul refers to:
Big Tim Sullivan was a notorious Irish gangster whose mob controlled New York City south of 14th Street around the turn of the 20th century. Throwing in his lot with the likes of Monk Eastman, Paul Kelly and Arnold Rothstein, Sullivan became an expert on that dark nexus where organized crime and politics consummate their unholy alliance, and soon became an influential figure in the corrupt Democratic machine there known as Tammany Hall.

...In 1911, the Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office faced a growing problem -- the Italians. Immigrant mafiosi newly arrived from Sicily and Naples were horning in on what had once been their exclusive domain. Gunfights on the Lower East Side and the neighborhood around Mulberry Street that was to become Little Italy grew more and more frequent, and it was getting so that you couldn't even shake down a barber shop or a greengrocer without some guy fresh off the boat taking a shot at you.

Not to worry, Big Tim told the boys. And in 1911, he took care of the problem.

The Sullivan Act was passed into law in New York state in 1911 and remains Big Tim's primary legacy. It effectively banned most people from owning and, especially, carrying handguns. Under the onerous conditions of the corrupted law, a peaceable citizen of sound mind could apply for a pistol permit, but if any of a number of elected or appointed officials objected to its issuance, he or she could be denied the license. The law remains in effect to this day and has been used as the basis for gun laws in many other states and municipalities.
Hochul literally laments her ability to determine who carries based off the Sullivan Act of 1911 ... which was written by criminals for criminals. She is not an ignorant person. In my mind her magniloquent statement borders on a confession.
JOIN NRA TODAY!
NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life, VCDL Member
LTC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 9002
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#19

Post by RoyGBiv »

philip964 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:27 pm
Rafe wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:57 pm
parabelum wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:41 pm Biden is “deeply disappointed” …

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden- ... sappointed
I had a cognitive slip. I read that as: Biden is "deeply disappointing"...
Lol

This is such great news!!

Think of it in a few years reciprocity in NYC!

Let the crying start in NY.

Twitter slams Gov. Hochul’s anger over SCOTUS gun ruling: ‘Sorry the Constitution happened to you’

https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-s ... n-happened
"Show me on the parchment where the Bill of Rights touched you.

"rlol"
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar

carlson1
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 11037
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#20

Post by carlson1 »

The Supreme Court are steadily handing the rights back to the people while John Cornyn, other snakes and vipers in Washington are taking them away. The 2A is not a right it is the people telling the Government they can’t infringe on my God given rights. Well those making laws do not obey the laws.
Image
User avatar

Mel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:47 pm
Location: Farmersville, TX

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#21

Post by Mel »

If Democraps stay in control, they'll start working on a way to do away with the Supreme Court.
Mel
Airworthiness Inspector specializing in Experimental and Light-Sport Aircraft since the last Century.

BigGuy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:36 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#22

Post by BigGuy »

Mel wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:59 pm If Democraps stay in control, they'll start working on a way to do away with the Supreme Court.
:iagree: Count on it.
User avatar

G.A. Heath
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2952
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Western Texas

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#23

Post by G.A. Heath »

Mel wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:59 pm If Democraps stay in control, they'll start working on a way to do away with the Supreme Court.
They are already talking about packing it with 4 more justices. 13 is a lucky number right?
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#24

Post by srothstein »

I think some of you may have missed the real significance of this decision. Yes, it struck down New York's may issue, but it did something a lot more significant too. It settled the question of how to decide if a law infringes on the 2A. No more intermediate scrutiny or even strict scrutiny. The new official test is a simple question - call it historical scrutiny. If the law would have been considered allowable and appropriate by the founding fathers, it is allowable. If not, it isn't. And the government has the burden of proving that it is acceptable.

This case will open up the floodgates for most gun laws to be struck down, if the lower courts abide by the test SCOTUS has now set. And it will probably affect every current gun case being considered too.

BTW, my favorite line in the decision mentions how sensitive place restrictions would be allowed. And Thomas then points out that the Island of Manhattan is not a sensitive place, no matter what the NY government claims.

DISCLAMER: I have not yet finished reading the whole decision and I have been told some of the concurrences are also very significant.
Steve Rothstein
User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 9002
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#25

Post by RoyGBiv »

srothstein wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:45 pm I think some of you may have missed the real significance of this decision. Yes, it struck down New York's may issue, but it did something a lot more significant too. It settled the question of how to decide if a law infringes on the 2A. No more intermediate scrutiny or even strict scrutiny. The new official test is a simple question - call it historical scrutiny. If the law would have been considered allowable and appropriate by the founding fathers, it is allowable. If not, it isn't. And the government has the burden of proving that it is acceptable.

This case will open up the floodgates for most gun laws to be struck down, if the lower courts abide by the test SCOTUS has now set. And it will probably affect every current gun case being considered too.

BTW, my favorite line in the decision mentions how sensitive place restrictions would be allowed. And Thomas then points out that the Island of Manhattan is not a sensitive place, no matter what the NY government claims.

DISCLAMER: I have not yet finished reading the whole decision and I have been told some of the concurrences are also very significant.
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment on this decisions treatment of sensitive places.
I think we'll see a lot of attempts to circumvent this decision by testing the limits on the definition of sensitive places.
Feels like this area was treated as either out of scope or divisive in this decision.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3037
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#26

Post by Flightmare »

srothstein wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:45 pm I think some of you may have missed the real significance of this decision. Yes, it struck down New York's may issue, but it did something a lot more significant too. It settled the question of how to decide if a law infringes on the 2A. No more intermediate scrutiny or even strict scrutiny. The new official test is a simple question - call it historical scrutiny. If the law would have been considered allowable and appropriate by the founding fathers, it is allowable. If not, it isn't. And the government has the burden of proving that it is acceptable.

This case will open up the floodgates for most gun laws to be struck down, if the lower courts abide by the test SCOTUS has now set. And it will probably affect every current gun case being considered too.

BTW, my favorite line in the decision mentions how sensitive place restrictions would be allowed. And Thomas then points out that the Island of Manhattan is not a sensitive place, no matter what the NY government claims.

DISCLAMER: I have not yet finished reading the whole decision and I have been told some of the concurrences are also very significant.
Justice Alito's concurrence is epic!
Deplorable lunatic since 2016
User avatar

rtschl
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1154
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#27

Post by rtschl »

I had several favorites sections in this landmark ruling:

Justice Thomas showing the racists roots of gun control, no less citing the infamous Dred Scott case.
The right to keep (Heller) and bear (Bruen here) in public is not a second class right.
The musket vs modern arms argument
And Samuel Alito's opinion destroyed the arguments by the minority of the court:










The text of the ruling can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf
Ron
NRA Member
User avatar

Grayling813
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:18 am

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#28

Post by Grayling813 »

Below is a comment from a New York resident at a site where I was reading about the decision. Sounds like there’s still a lot to overcome in that state.
I live in NY. It is not the NY that most people think of; I am 400 miles from NYC and only 200 miles from Cleveland. Where I live is basically the Eastern Midwest, not “New York.”

This decision is a good thing and it is a win, but trust me it is not quite as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. What people who are not from NY do not realize is that a NY handgun permit is not just a CCW permit; it is a discretionary permit to OWN and POSSESS a REGISTERED handgun that can be confiscated by the State at any time for any reason.

For instance, if you get ACCUSED of misdemeanor DUI, even if you have not been CONVICTED, the State can and will CONFISCATE your handguns — and after the SAFE Act, they can confiscate your long guns too.

None of this was addressed in the Bruen decision.

NYS handgun permit law requires that you demonstrate “just cause” (which is totally subjective) as to why you “need” a handgun. Licenses are issued by county judges who normally hear felony trials. Many judges, including in some very rural areas, NEVER accept “self-defense” as a “just cause” for owning and carrying a handgun. Many judges will ONLY issue a license for “hunting and target shooting,” period.

Bizarre as it may sound, violating these restrictions — i.e., carrying when you are not actually hunting or target shooting — is NOT illegal and you cannot be charged with a crime. But the judge CAN and WILL revoke your discretionary permit to POSSESS an handgun, even on your own private property, for violating these “administrative” restrictions. When your permit to POSSESS is revoked the State will CONFISCATE your handguns.

The Bruen decision says that the State cannot require an applicant to prove a “special need” justifying CCW for self-defense. In other words, Bruen says that if a judge issues a permit, it cannot have “hunting and target only” restrictions on it.

But the application and licensing process remains. In order to POSSESS a REGISTERED handgun on your own private property (with a maximum 10 rd capacity), you will still need a police background check, fingerprints, a mental health evaluation, HIPAA waiver, a safety class, between four and eight personal references, and to spend hundreds of dollars in fees and fill out a 35-40 page notarized application under penalty of perjury that is about as intrusive as a rectal exam, which asks questions like if you have bows and arrows and where they are stored.

Beyond that, the State will take steps to effectively nullify Bruen, namely: 1) they will use any and every subjective “mental health” criteria they can to deny people, and 2) they will make it it felony to carry on any private property without the express consent of the owner, meaning that if you get a carry permit in NYC literally the only place you will be able to carry is on the public sidewalk and you will not be able to enter any private restaurant, bar, deli, store, or office without getting a felony arrest which, upon conviction, will bar you from owning firearms for life.

What Real Americans in Real America need to understand is that these people are like a cult, gun control is like religion to them. Trying to get them to accept the Bruen decision is basically like going to the Grand Mosque in Mecca and trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. They simply will not listen and will gladly kill you rather than convert.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” - Patrick Henry

Caliber
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#29

Post by Caliber »

This case sets precedent that courts hearing 2A cases should use Text, History, and Tradition (THT) scrutiny and not use Strict or Intermediate scrutiny. This is HUGE because the liberal courts have been using Intermediate scrutiny to decide cases which (basically) allows the courts to rule however they feel fit. In addition, now we will probably see court cases regarding "sensitive areas" especially in New York and California. Because THT is required, New York (for example) can't just arbitrarily state that TImes Square is a "sensitive area".

The THT concept makes me wonder how 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 are legal in certain instances. For example, a movie theater posts these signs. Is there THT backing banning firearms in movie theaters? I would think not. And, federal law trumps any state law. So, does Texas 30.05, 30.06, 30.07 violate the 2nd amendment at movie theaters?
User avatar

Topic author
oohrah
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1303
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: McLennan County

Re: Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

#30

Post by oohrah »

Caliber wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:45 am This case sets precedent that courts hearing 2A cases should use Text, History, and Tradition (THT) scrutiny and not use Strict or Intermediate scrutiny. This is HUGE because the liberal courts have been using Intermediate scrutiny to decide cases which (basically) allows the courts to rule however they feel fit. In addition, now we will probably see court cases regarding "sensitive areas" especially in New York and California. Because THT is required, New York (for example) can't just arbitrarily state that TImes Square is a "sensitive area".

The THT concept makes me wonder how 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 are legal in certain instances. For example, a movie theater posts these signs. Is there THT backing banning firearms in movie theaters? I would think not. And, federal law trumps any state law. So, does Texas 30.05, 30.06, 30.07 violate the 2nd amendment at movie theaters?
You are confusing restrictions on what the government can do, and the rights of private property owners. There is no THT for banning firearms on my private property, but I can certainly do it if I so choose. Even private businesses have the right to restrict their clientele, e.g., "no shirt, no shoes, no service".
USMC, Retired
Treating one variety of person as better or worse than others by accident of birth is morally indefensible.
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”