We have previously discussed how New York has proven the gift that keeps on giving for gun rights advocates. New York Democrats have passed a series of laws that led to catastrophic losses in federal court, including the recent major ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. After each loss, the same politicians circle the firing squad again and pass the next round of questionable gun limits. New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul promised such legislation within an hour of the release of Bruen. It has now passed with the help of a special session in the resumption of this inexorable cycle.
The Concealed Carry Improvement Act passed 43-20 and has some elements likely to pass constitutional muster like barring concealed weapons from certain sensitive places and taking a gun safety course. However, other elements are more questionable.
Even the limits on sensitive places are likely to be challenged. After Bruen was handed down recognizing that some sensitive places could be constitutionally permissible, Hochul went on television to say in a mocking tone that they would just come up with a long list of sensitive places. At the time I remarked that it was a rather foolish statement since that clip will be cited by challengers to show a clear attempt to undermine the ruling with yet another transparent loophole argument.
The list would seem to cover most areas outside of the home, including government buildings; any location providing health, behavioral health or chemical dependence care or services; any place of worship or religious observation; libraries; public playgrounds; public parks; zoos; the location of any state funded or licensed programs; educational institutions both in elementary and higher education; any vehicle used for public transportation; all public transit including airports and bus terminals; bars and restaurants; entertainment, gaming and sporting events and venues; polling places; any public sidewalk or public area restricted for a special event; and protests or rallies.
It is hard not to see that listing as an obvious effort to do precisely what Hochul said: to recreate the ban by including virtually every location as a “sensitive area.” Indeed, the Court stressed that few locations historically met such a definition:
“Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. … We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were ‘sensitive places’ where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of ‘sensitive places’ to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.”
One of the most questionable elements is the requirement that gun owners show “good moral character.” That obviously raises comparisons to the invalid Sullivan Act of 1911, giving local officials discretion over who can carry concealed guns based on a showing of “proper cause.” The Court rejected the notion that citizens must prove their need to use an individual right as opposed to the government shouldering the countervailing burden:
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
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.”
Under the New York law, applicants must undergo “enhanced screening” with in-person interviews and submit to reviews of their social media, including required access to social media. That provision seems ripe for challenge on a host of grounds, including the denial of free speech and associations rights.
The law seems another overreach by the state. As I noted earlier, New York has thus far been about as effective in curtailing gun rights as Monty Python’s “Judean People’s Front Crack Suicide Squad” was effective in combating Roman occupation.
After all, who needs Texas when gun rights advocates have New York?
The new firearm law will take effect on September 1. A challenge is expected no later than September 2.
Anywhere a “criminal” can conceal carry a firearm a “law-abiding citizen” should be able to conceal carry because the point of conceal carry is for self-defense.
A criminal will have to pass through the same metal detectors as the law-abiding citizen when entering a “sensitive place.” If club owners can do it at nightclubs, anyone may do it anywhere on their own private property.
What the state cannot do, private property owners can.
True.
Likeewise, even before Dobbs, they were able to rxclude women who could not prove they have never had abortions.
Chicagoland this weekend, so far. 3 dead, 18 wounded. More gun laws should fix this.
Politicians who support gun control either live in gated mansions or employ private security. The rest of us, not so much
I contacted our police precinct captain via email, last week, twice, leaving my phone number and our home address. I asked him to have his police patrol the park after 9 pm near our home. We have been hearing gunshots with more regularity, and calling 911 does nothing. Violent crime always peaks July 4th weekend in our city run by Democrats.
It is presently Saturday evening and the captain has not replied, called nor visited our home. Thankfully our AR-15 is a better sleep agent than melatonin capsules.
For me the 2 glasses of Italian vino I just consumed with my Saturday night dinner is a better sleep agent than either.
The list of sensitive places is more extensive that what JT mentioned. And get this: all private properties are gun-free zones unless it is posted that guns are permitted.
The list from the legislation:
§ 265.01-E CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IN A
SENSITIVE LOCATION.
1. A PERSON IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR
SHOTGUN IN A SENSITIVE LOCATION WHEN SUCH PERSON POSSESSES A FIREARM,
RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IN OR UPON A SENSITIVE LOCATION, AND SUCH PERSON KNOWS
OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW SUCH LOCATION IS A SENSITIVE LOCATION.
2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, A SENSITIVE LOCATION SHALL MEAN:
(A) ANY PLACE OWNED OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING
COURTS;
(B) ANY LOCATION PROVIDING HEALTH, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, OR CHEMICAL
DEPENDANCE CARE OR SERVICES;
(C) ANY PLACE OF WORSHIP OR RELIGIOUS OBSERVATION;
(D) LIBRARIES, PUBLIC PLAYGROUNDS, PUBLIC PARKS, AND ZOOS;
(E) THE LOCATION OF ANY PROGRAM LICENSED, REGULATED, CERTIFIED, FUND-
ED, OR APPROVED BY THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES THAT
PROVIDES SERVICES TO CHILDREN, YOUTH, OR YOUNG ADULTS, ANY LEGALLY
EXEMPT CHILDCARE PROVIDER; A CHILDCARE PROGRAM FOR WHICH A PERMIT TO
OPERATE SUCH PROGRAM HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
MENTAL HYGIENE PURSUANT TO THE HEALTH CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK;
(F) NURSERY SCHOOLS, PRESCHOOLS, AND SUMMER CAMPS;
S. 1 9
(G) THE LOCATION OF ANY PROGRAM LICENSED, REGULATED, CERTIFIED, OPER-
ATED, OR FUNDED BY THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILI-
TIES;
(H) THE LOCATION OF ANY PROGRAM LICENSED, REGULATED, CERTIFIED, OPER-
ATED, OR FUNDED BY OFFICE OF ADDICTION SERVICES AND SUPPORTS;
(I) THE LOCATION OF ANY PROGRAM LICENSED, REGULATED, CERTIFIED, OPER-
ATED, OR FUNDED BY THE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH;
(J) THE LOCATION OF ANY PROGRAM LICENSED, REGULATED, CERTIFIED, OPER-
ATED, OR FUNDED BY THE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE;
(K) HOMELESS SHELTERS, RUNAWAY HOMELESS YOUTH SHELTERS, FAMILY SHEL-
TERS, SHELTERS FOR ADULTS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS, AND EMERGENCY
SHELTERS, AND RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE;
(L) RESIDENTIAL SETTINGS LICENSED, CERTIFIED, REGULATED, FUNDED, OR
OPERATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH;
(M) IN OR UPON ANY BUILDING OR GROUNDS, OWNED OR LEASED, OF ANY EDUCA-
TIONAL INSTITUTIONS, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, LICENSED PRIVATE CAREER
SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS LICENSED
UNDER ARTICLE ONE HUNDRED ONE OF THE EDUCATION LAW, CHARTER SCHOOLS,
NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, SPECIAL
ACT SCHOOLS, PRESCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL
OR NON-RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS FOR THE EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILI-
TIES, AND ANY STATE-OPERATED OR STATE-SUPPORTED SCHOOLS;
(N) ANY PLACE, CONVEYANCE, OR VEHICLE USED FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
OR PUBLIC TRANSIT, SUBWAY CARS, TRAIN CARS, BUSES, FERRIES, RAILROAD,
OMNIBUS, MARINE OR AVIATION TRANSPORTATION; OR ANY FACILITY USED FOR OR
IN CONNECTION WITH SERVICE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS,
AIRPORTS, TRAIN STATIONS, SUBWAY AND RAIL STATIONS, AND BUS TERMINALS;
(O) ANY ESTABLISHMENT ISSUED A LICENSE FOR ON-PREMISE CONSUMPTION
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR, FOUR-A, FIVE, OR SIX OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTROL LAW WHERE ALCOHOL IS CONSUMED AND ANY ESTABLISHMENT LICENSED
UNDER ARTICLE FOUR OF THE CANNABIS LAW FOR ON-PREMISE CONSUMPTION;
(P) ANY PLACE USED FOR THE PERFORMANCE, ART ENTERTAINMENT, GAMING, OR
SPORTING EVENTS SUCH AS THEATERS, STADIUMS, RACETRACKS, MUSEUMS, AMUSE-
MENT PARKS, PERFORMANCE VENUES, CONCERTS, EXHIBITS, CONFERENCE CENTERS,
BANQUET HALLS, AND GAMING FACILITIES AND VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINAL FACILI-
TIES AS LICENSED BY THE GAMING COMMISSION;
(Q) ANY LOCATION BEING USED AS A POLLING PLACE;
(R) ANY PUBLIC SIDEWALK OR OTHER PUBLIC AREA RESTRICTED FROM GENERAL
PUBLIC ACCESS FOR A LIMITED TIME OR SPECIAL EVENT THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED A
PERMIT FOR SUCH TIME OR EVENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, OR SUBJECT TO
SPECIFIC, HEIGHTENED LAW ENFORCEMENT PROTECTION, OR HAS OTHERWISE HAD
SUCH ACCESS RESTRICTED BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, PROVIDED SUCH LOCATION
IS IDENTIFIED AS SUCH BY CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS SIGNAGE;
(S) ANY GATHERING OF INDIVIDUALS TO COLLECTIVELY EXPRESS THEIR CONSTI-
TUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROTEST OR ASSEMBLE;
(T) THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS TIMES SQUARE, AS SUCH AREA IS DETER-
MINED AND IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK; PROVIDED SUCH AREA SHALL
BE CLEARLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY IDENTIFIED WITH SIGNAGE.
What constitutes a Constitutionally protected “gun free zone” will bedevil the courts for many years to come. In addition to pro-abortion and anti-abortion states, in the years to come, there may be “sensitive states” and “anti-sensitive states” depending upon the number of establishments restricting gun carrying.
What constitutes a Constitutionally protected “gun free zone” will bedevil the courts
What exactly does this word salad mean? Did Vp Harris hijack your moniker
There exists no such thing
A high school JR that Slept through only half the civics class would know that question is nothing but raw ignorance
The question that will bedevil power hungry politicians, What constitutional power allows us to strip citiizens of their freedom and liberties?
Iowan2,
Carry a gun. Just can’t carry it with you in certain “sensitive areas” as left open to interpretation by the SC. Armed citizens will be treated no differently than smokers.
You may start seeing signs posted at certain private establishments, “No dogs or guns allowed.”
yet trolls are huh? color us shocked
I have thought more and more that New York was better off under the governorship of Andrew Cuomo than under this left-wingnut who has increasingly felt emboldened to misbehave professionally in ways that have become very obvious. Her ‘contempt of court’ discussed in this piece should have consequences.
Richard says:
“Her ‘contempt of court’ discussed in this piece should have consequences.”
Good point. Indeed, there are many who believe that those who have a contempt for government by referring to it as the “Deep State” should face political consequences as well.
jeffsilberman for once makes a useful comment that merits a reply with his following threat:
Indeed, there are many who believe that those who have a contempt for government by referring to it as the “Deep State” should face political consequences as well.
Which dovetails nicely to:
The Top 10 Reasons Why You Should Own An AR-15
https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/12/top-10-reasons-ar-15/
Thanks Jeff! Lock and Load, bruh!
Estovir,
Don’t make me suffer. One shot in the back of my head, I beg you.
Jeff, you make all of us suffer hourly with your posts. Thus your cries for mercy are, well, entertaining
So, you won’t put me out my misery with a coup de grâce?
You will make me bleed out?
I will say Catholic prayers in Latin, douse you with Holy Water and baptize you.
Call a priest to give me an Extreme Unction if you think I need one.
FYI: Jeff: they call it “sacrament of the sick” now, and you can receive it prior to surgery or during any health crisis, even if you are not, per se, dying. Sadly, though, there is a move afoot to try to go back to Latin for Mass, forcing women to wear hats or chapel caps and other throw-backs prior to Vatican 2. I guess they’ll have to keep a supply of Kleenex and bobby pins in the narthex so they can pin a Kleenex on your head before you enter the sanctuary, llke the nuns used to do when I was a kid, if you forgot your chapel cap or mantilla. I still have mine, but I won’t go back to wearing them.
Natacha,
I picked up that “extreme unction” bit while watching a documentary about Oscar Wilde. He was granted that sacrament by a Catholic priest in spite of his well-known sin against nature. I confess that I am not Catholic.
“Religion does not help me. The faith that others give to what is unseen, I give to what one can touch, and look at.”
-Wilde
You have just authorized an assisted suicide. From earlier posts I learned you live in California. And California is one of several states which allow it.
But not with an AR-15 which is Estovir’s assisted suicide weapon of choice
Big difference between exercising free speech rights and taking overt action to violate a citizen’s civil rights.
Cuomo was like a Hussein or Gaddafi, objectionable, obnoxious and uncouth, but the kind of enforcer that was needed to keep everything in line.
Hochul is all over the place, has no fundamental grounding or position, obviously panders to the political wind du jour, and everyone can sense it.
She is a placeholder governor, that should be chucked out of office as soon as possible, as she is an unmoored rudder spinning in the tide.
New York, the gift that keeps on giving to the NRA
Let’s think about a list of sensitive places we can all agree:
government buildings;
any location providing behavioral health or chemical dependence care or services;
any place of worship;
educational institutions both in elementary and higher education;
all airports;
bars and restaurants serving alcohol;
entertainment, gaming and sporting events and venues serving alcohol;
polling places;
protests or rallies within enclosed places with public speakers.
I presume that any privately owned business establishment could install a metal detector since I am not aware that gun carriers are a protected class of people who cannot be discriminated not unlike smokers.
—————————-
That’s my list.
jeffsilverman– I don’t have any serious problems with your list, on one condition. Each place that prohibits firearms should have a metal detector or some other such device so that no one inside has a gun, instead of only those who obey the law. We do this with courthouses and the government buildings of the people who enact such laws. If states or businesses cannot afford it, I think it would be a prudent expenditure of federal funds especially in light of the silly things on which much federal money is spent.
Honestlawyer,
I think I may ask my broker to put me in some companies that make metal detectors and portable lockers. I imagine a lot of business may want to screen people for firearms and have them secured in a locker at the entranceway. It’s too bad that we all may have to empty our pockets, remove our belt, have our handbags searched in order to pass through a metal detector in order to enter The Olive Garden, etc.
That depends on the discretion of individual business owners, of course.
Yes, of course.
New York wants to mandate that list. Let me provide one example. Why should churches which are private religious organizations, be on the list? It should be their choice. If we recall, a churchgoer with a gun killed a man intent on killing the congregation in that church.
That isn’t your list. That is NYC’s list.
I pared it down from the NYC list. You got a list of what?
That is the NY list and I think in the same order as reported.
Anywhere the government or private party can guarantee a gun free zone is my list
I prefer a guaranteed crime-free zone before banning concealed (or open) carry.
If the govt has the power to restrict some places, they have the power to restrict ALL place.
So your list is all crap.
Iowan,
Thank goodness Turley does not think like you.
Rather than making a list and trying to imagine every place you shouldn’t be allowed to protect yourself, a better standard, easily managed by the courts would be the following.
“Any public place that is provides state-funded protection of the citizens located there, provided such public place has signage at every entrance indicating that the state is providing protection, and no less than 1 armed officer for each 20 members of the public present”
That lets the states decide what locations are REALLY important to remove your guns, and leaves no ambiguity regarding where you are supposed to protect yourself, and where the state is actively protecting you.
280zfan says:
“That lets the states decide what locations are REALLY important to remove your guns, and leaves no ambiguity regarding where you are supposed to protect yourself, and where the state is actively protecting you.”
The states will protect unarmed citizens in “gun-free zones” where everyone must disarm before entering the premises. The use of a metal detector at every private establishment which serves alcohol and every other private office or business which the owner sees fit will serve to protect everyone inside.
I am not sure why any place can objectively be deemed sensitive. I can see why alcohol and guns don’t mix but the just make it illegal to be intoxicated and in possession of a firearm.
Capital idea! If you carry a weapon, you can’t drink alcohol. That ought to kill the prevalence of guns carried in public.
meanwhile, NYC is descending into bedlam while Democrats illegally disarm the good guys.
Democrats just cant quit being Commies
https://nypost.com/2022/07/02/nypd-exodus-has-become-a-stampede-pba-leader-patrick-lynch/
NYPD exodus ‘has become a stampede:’ PBA leader Lynch
To date, 2,119 cops have left the job in 2022, with 1,472 retiring and 647 resigning, a 38% spike over the previous record of 1,535 for the first six months of 2020, the attrition numbers show.
“The exodus has become a stampede. We’re not only losing experienced veterans. We’re also losing cops in the prime of their careers who are taking their talents elsewhere,” said Police Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch.
To the State of NY. Stop passing these crazy laws, it is causing your population to move to Florida and we do not want the idiots who elected you to office in our State.
The Idiots are staying. The ones with brains and common sense are the ones leaving.
JT did not address the issue but it will be interesting to see how the lower courts react in post Bruen cases. Between Heller and Bruen, lower courts were upholding lots of gun control legislation so let’s see how they define sensitive areas and other issues as NY and other cases come before them.
ALL NOTE that those “Lower Courts” now must US recent Supreme Court Gun Rights Rulings for “Guidance”, so don’t expect a repeat of past Lower Court Rulings!
From the Smithsonian Magazine, February 5, 2018,:
“The laws of Tombstone at the time [1881] required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman’s office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)”
blogfen:
Yes, but was the practice widespread? Tombstone and the other cities you mentioned (if they did in fact have Tombstone-like regulations) could have been outliers for the nation as a whole. I also suspect those who carried around Tombstone were not vetted as NY will require.
This was addressed in the ruling.
Those towns were outliers and the majority of the rest of the Nation did not have these laws. The only issue was that there was no court challenge to the laws on Deadwood or the like.
That said, it is ridiculous to place onerous restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Nobody has to take a college level course on logic to speak freely. Nobody has to curtail their free speech in schools. Nobody has to leave their personal beliefs at the door to a church or a mosque. It should be up to the individual to knowingly and thoughtfully exercise all of their rights with regard to their fellow man.
blogfen: You are right. Dodge City was another town that strictly enforced its prohibition against carrying guns in town. I know because my great, great uncle was a member of the Dodge City Peace Commission in the early 1880s–along with Wyatt Earp, Luke Short and Bat Masterson. There was a reason for the ban. The westward expansion of the railroad had reached the west coast going through Dodge City. The City “fathers” were worried about the “Wild West” image of the town. Wealthy east coast travelers and their families going to California for the winter were alarmed by the open carry of guns in town. So my great, great uncle was put on the Commission. He owned the local newspaper and the town council believed he would help in enforcing stricter gun laws. He did. A lot of gun totters refused and were put in jail. Dodge City’s gun law was strictly enforced. So Steve Brown doesn’t know what he is talking about!
So what you’re saying is that taking away people’s rights was a P.R. move.
Law of the same era allowed people to own people.
Point being. Just because a practice was in place, in no way speaks to its constitutionality.
Two drug traffickers were released last week without bail in Tulare County, California after they were arrested smuggling 150,000 Fentanyl pills. The DEA states on their website that at least 42% of illicit Fentanyl pills have a dose of 2mg or higher. Fentanyl is (estimated) 100x more potent than morphine. 150,000 tablets at 2mg is 300 grams. 1Kg fentanyl has the potential to kill 500,000 people. 300 grams (150,000 pills) would be 166,000 potential deaths. Apply the 42% DEA sample average (2mg or higher) this would still be enough to kill 70,000 people. The traffickers were released on their own recognizance!
On the other hand, politicians are doing all they can to restrict law abiding citizens from their freedoms and ability to protect themselves.
There is a pattern and it is bizarre and insane. It is the Mount Everest of B.S.
I agree. Unbelievable. Well said. Great link to the DEA site: https://www.dea.gov/resources/facts-about-fentanyl
I predicted that NY would go down this path but I believe the extremism in some of the legislation will simply put NY in a bad light and thus hurt its case. Just imagine what the six justices who rule against NY will think, when they read the proposed legislation. They will see that as NY giving them the middle finger. And so too would any judge who harbors even the slightest amount of fidelity for the Constitution and for the rule of law. Thank you NY for giving gun rights a winning hand.
New York should focus on illegal firearms, instead of passing laws that have the sole purpose of irking conservative gun owners. This new law will do nothing to stop gun crime — unless, of course, criminals stay out of all the “sensitive areas.” Democrats seem oblivious to crime when it comes to their mobs burning and looting, or threatening public officials. When their pet DAs release criminals and refuse to prosecute them, Democrats never object. But they’re all for making it difficult for law-abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves to acquire firearms. Sounds like there are lots of ulterior motives in these new laws.
Most of the rank-and-file gun control supporters and sympathizers fear the street thug and the gangbanger.
Sadly and tragically, too many of them have compelling reasons to fear the street thug and the gangbanger.
Michael McBride (who was on record as supporting universal background checks and assault weapons bans) was presented with a red pill when he heard from another pastor that there “was no political will in the country to address inner-city violence”
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/
The past two years’ track record of the side pushing for more gun control laws should be a full bottle of red pills for the rank-and-fuile gun control supporters and sympathizers.
The peopkle who enact and enforce these gun control laws will not be the people who desire to suppresss street muggings and gang violence.
It would be those who push for “restorative justice” and “defund the police”.
Democrats will have as much success stopping illegal guns from coming in as they have stopping fentanyl from coming through their open border.
The Democrats will only close the border when they realize Hispanics are voting for Republicans.
That rude awakening will come this November.
Sounds to me like this is a ploy to keep lawyers employed.
Getting rich off of the middle class.
And you do understand that we the taxpayer are the ones who are on the hook for legal costs that politicians incur.
And you were on the hook for trump playing golf a bunch of times, too. So there’s that.
Go figure. New York maintains monitoring individual gun owners for mental health baselines and the most common areas for mass shootings should be protected from concealed carry….
Shocking….
Go New York! F the SCOTUS!!
eb, you should know more about what you are talking about. The Supreme Court decision doesn’t stop the states from requiring training, and a whole bunch other things.
Ignorance of the facts cause you to post a lot of useless stuff that is wrong.
Yeah, yeah, I know this. But there’s a certain absurdity Turley’s editorial agenda and to the comments here that calls for darkly humorous absurdity in kind. Hope it doesn’t break anyone’s brain. I suppose i should’ve added training, specifically, under my broad ‘mental health baseline’ categorization…., fair, but you know…, f you. There. Are we square now? Because a strictly factual discussion of the type of Orwellian drivel that this blog puts out every day is sort of equally Orwellian.
What can you expect when you have a President who embarrasses the nation internationally with remarks against our justices. Another one of his mental midgets tells Americans must suffer for the “liberal world order”. This garbage must come to an end.
Do New York’s Governor and members of the Legislature seriously believe that strict gun laws will make a dent in the number of murders or other shootings? The overwhelming majority of all of the shootings are done by people who readily ignore homicide and assault laws which carry much stiffer penalties than violating gun control regulations. And, surely they do not think that guns will be less available if they have strict laws. Even if every state in the Union prohibited ownership of any and all guns, criminals still would have a readily available supply across our open southern border which, undoubtedly this same Governor and members of the Legislature applaud. And, even if the laws against guns are enforced with widespread arrests, the laws under which New York courts operate and the silly Manhattan DA and his fellow travelers would ensure that the violators are back on the streets before the ink is dry on the booking slips. The only thing gun control laws do, at best, is prevent some spur-of-the-moment “angry” shootings, usually between people who know each other or family members, and that is a very small percentage of the total.
Data from another poster with some revisions. Sorry that I forgot who.
From 2016 data
—
30,000 firearms deaths (us population 324,000,000) .0009% of the pop dies from guns.
——
65% suicide
15% law enforcement justified
17% criminal activity, drug, gang, mentally ill
3% accidental discharge
——
Technical number “gun violence” 5,100
380 (9,4%) Chicago
344 (6.7%) Baltimore
333 (6.5%) Detroit
119 (2.3%) Washington D.C.
——
—–
3,825 deaths for the rest of the nation
75 deaths per state
—
California 1,169 deaths
Alabama 1 death
——
Where are the strictest gun laws? California, Chicago and some other places.
====
Deaths other causes:
40,000 drug overdose (now I think exceeding 100,000)
36,000 from the flu
34,000 from traffic accidents
Get on with it then, Allan. Jump up in one of these categories.
I don’t get what you mean, anonymous. Are you asking me to drop dead? If that is your request, then it is obvious that you realize how impotent you are. You have run out of bullets and now rely on your enemy to commit suicide. I don’t think so. Instead, I will party.
Ha. You’re already one of the un dead.
Are you saying I was resurrected?
“After all, who needs Texas when gun rights advocates have New York?”
Questions of how much the 2nd Amendment must be protected, will honed down and affirmed at much more rapid rate as states like NY “pushback” against the fundamental rulings of the Supreme Court.
As NY does away with the ‘special need’ requirement to bear and carry arms, and then replaces it with —
a [1] moral turpitude test and to [2] pass a mandatory investigation and bureaucratic assessment of a citizen’s collected published and private statements, [3] restrictions of where bear/carry is permitted to include almost all public and private spaces —
The challenges in federal courts will come fast and furious, and what is already stated in the Bruen decision will be made more explicit, with less wiggle room, than if NY pushback type laws were never put into place.
The NY law is obviously as equally onerous as the ‘special need’ statute it purports to replace.
And as JT points out, the governor’s oppositional speeches merely makes clearer the laws intent to subvert the Bruen decision.
Governor Hochul is like Governor Wallace.
Lefty politicians show their contempt for the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS rulings.
Then they expect us to obey their arbitrary rules.
Bottom line, access to weapons is the key.
Once somebody has a gun, up to him what laws he obeys.
Lots of otherwise law abiding citizens break 2nd Amendment restrictions.
And are perfectly happy doing so.
If NY is passing frivolous “laws” that only serve to hinder guns rights while they are appealed and ultimately struck down, the courts should impose severe monetary sanctions against all individuals who are party to this abuse of process.