New NY Licensing Law

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BFG

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0

    Sounds about what you'd expect and will probably be a template for the other "may issue" states.

    Let the lawsuits begin.

    Mods: Move to the correct forum if this isn't right.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,632
    149

    Sounds about what you'd expect and will probably be a template for the other "may issue" states.

    Let the lawsuits begin.

    Mods: Move to the correct forum if this isn't right.
    The big three NY, Cali and NJ are all pulling this kind of crap in defiance of the SCOTUS decision. They are still in the business of making it extremely difficult to obtain a permit and even if you do it's damn near impossible to carry anywhere.
     
    Last edited:

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon

    Sounds about what you'd expect and will probably be a template for the other "may issue" states.

    Let the lawsuits begin.

    Mods: Move to the correct forum if this isn't right.
    Looks like the right sub-forum to me BFG. This **** never ends I swear. The headline raised my blood pressure and I haven't even clicked on it yet.
     

    rooster

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Mar 4, 2010
    3,306
    113
    Indianapolis
    Seeing as this doesn’t even come close passing the test the Supreme Court setup in the NY case I see no reason they cannot hold the individual politicians in contempt of court.

    We all know what would happen if I went against what a judge of panel of judges said…….. two tier justice system.


    There is precedent for this in case your wondering.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,632
    149
    Seeing as this doesn’t even come close passing the test the Supreme Court setup in the NY case I see no reason they cannot hold the individual politicians in contempt of court.

    We all know what would happen if I went against what a judge of panel of judges said…….. two tier justice system.


    There is precedent for this in case your wondering.
    It's like they are still operating as if it were the good old days when judges upheld their anti 2A laws based on a two-step system. They need a serious smackdown and its' up to the courts to give it to them by following the new one step Constitutional based guidelines outlined in the SCOTUS decision. There's going to be a lot of litigation in the near future and for some time to come. The question is how will the courts handle this? TBD
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,007
    77
    Porter County
    I can see no way this stands up in court. It's basically illegal to carry anywhere except on the sidewalk.
    Firearms will also be barred from private establishments unless business owners explicitly state that they are allowed. Businesses must post a sign granting permission to armed patrons. In many other states, businesses that do not permit guns typically have to post signs indicating that firearms are not allowed.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,791
    150
    Avon
    That was an easy fix. Let the pearl-clutching and gnashing of teeth begin.

    The new law will require people trying to purchase a handgun license running for elected office to hand over a list of social media accounts they have maintained over the last three years, so officials can verify their "character and conduct."
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    The reactions of NY, NJ, CA, and now MA were predictable. They're all acting like two year-olds throwing tantrums to satisfy their power base, especially the campaign contributors. Chicago did this for a bit over a year in the wake of the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago decision. It ping-ponged back and forth to the District Court until the 7th Circuit Court finally told Chicago under no uncertain terms containing great clarity to knock it off.

    There was a similar situation in a local city which will remain unnamed in which the long since former mayor attempted all manner of inventive schemes to achieve an end that had lost in court. The end result was predictable but not before it cost the city a princely sum paying the legal bills - including the City Attorney resigning and having to be replaced because he was fed up with it, stating he could not continue all the legal shenanigans in good conscience as a diligent attorney - knowing they would all fail at taxpayer cost - and that the Mayor was refusing to hear sound legal advice telling him same. One of the higher courts ultimately told the now long gone mayor (who has since moved out of that city) to cease with all the antics.

    John
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,690
    113
    .
    Makes money for law firms and signals virtue to social media, this game will go on forever.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,632
    149
    That's pretty much what I meant. How will the lower courts handle all of this nonsense now. It shouldn't even get to the SCOTUS level if they followed SCOTUS guidelines.
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    . . .
    The question is how will the [lower] courts handle this? TBD
    As already mentioned (by me), McDonald v. City of Chicago ping-ponged into the Federal District Court and ultimately the 7th Circuit Court for little over a year until Chicago was clearly told to cease attempting their end-around shenanigans.

    Regarding the aftermath of Thomas' rationale in the extant decision, SCOTUS GVR'ed four cases back to their respective Circuit Courts with instructions to the apply the extant SCOTUS decision rationale to them. These included a carry issue case from Hawaii, plus "magazine capacity" and "assault weapon" cases. Seeing this with two of those four SCOTUS GVR's landing in its lap (one of them Duncan v. Bonta), the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded Rupp v. Bonta (formerly Rupp v. Becerra) regarding "assault weapons" back to the Central California Federal District Court with similar instructions.

    Lower courts do not like having their pee pees slapped with unpublished or summary decisions from higher courts for failing to follow clear precedents set by the higher courts. There are ultimately sanctions and consequences for judges who repeatedly render decisions and judgements that run afoul of higher court published precedents, especially very recent ones. A "published" decision is one that sets precedence and can be freely used to cite precedence until such time as it's overturned (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson, and now Roe v. Wade). SCOTUS decisions are always published. Granting review, Vacating and Remanding back is a clear message to the lower court to Do the Right Thing and usually contains some instructions about what to pay attention to the do-over. An "unpublished" decision is one that is typically made using prior precedence and therefore doesn't set precedence on its own - or that shouldn't be used as setting a precedence. The latter explanations of published & unpublished is deliberately oversimplified.

    John
     

    Quiet Observer

    Sharpshooter
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2022
    414
    63
    St. John
    I agree with others above that it is unconstitutional. On the practical side, how would the state know if you listed all your sites?
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,632
    149
    As already mentioned (by me), McDonald v. City of Chicago ping-ponged into the Federal District Court and ultimately the 7th Circuit Court for little over a year until Chicago was clearly told to cease attempting their end-around shenanigans.

    Regarding the aftermath of Thomas' rationale in the extant decision, SCOTUS GVR'ed four cases back to their respective Circuit Courts with instructions to the apply the extant SCOTUS decision rationale to them. These included a carry issue case from Hawaii, plus "magazine capacity" and "assault weapon" cases. Seeing this with two of those four SCOTUS GVR's landing in its lap (one of them Duncan v. Bonta), the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded Rupp v. Bonta (formerly Rupp v. Becerra) regarding "assault weapons" back to the Central California Federal District Court with similar instructions.

    Lower courts do not like having their pee pees slapped with unpublished or summary decisions from higher courts for failing to follow clear precedents set by the higher courts. There are ultimately sanctions and consequences for judges who repeatedly render decisions and judgements that run afoul of higher court published precedents, especially very recent ones. A "published" decision is one that sets precedence and can be freely used to cite precedence until such time as it's overturned (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson, and now Roe v. Wade). SCOTUS decisions are always published. Granting review, Vacating and Remanding back is a clear message to the lower court to Do the Right Thing and usually contains some instructions about what to pay attention to the do-over. An "unpublished" decision is one that is typically made using prior precedence and therefore doesn't set precedence on its own - or that shouldn't be used as setting a precedence. The latter explanations of published & unpublished is deliberately oversimplified.

    John
    Yes I know about all of this. SCOTUS tossed the ball back down to the lower courts with explicit instructions to handle cases based upon a one-step Constitutional standard as outlined in their decision. It's time for all the lower courts to adhere to that standard in rendering any decisions from now on. I know how they SHOULD but it has yet TBD how well they will adhere since the lower courts have yet to render any decisions based upon the new guidelines.
     
    Last edited:

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,938
    113
    Avon
    As already mentioned (by me), McDonald v. City of Chicago ping-ponged into the Federal District Court and ultimately the 7th Circuit Court for little over a year until Chicago was clearly told to cease attempting their end-around shenanigans.

    Regarding the aftermath of Thomas' rationale in the extant decision, SCOTUS GVR'ed four cases back to their respective Circuit Courts with instructions to the apply the extant SCOTUS decision rationale to them. These included a carry issue case from Hawaii, plus "magazine capacity" and "assault weapon" cases. Seeing this with two of those four SCOTUS GVR's landing in its lap (one of them Duncan v. Bonta), the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded Rupp v. Bonta (formerly Rupp v. Becerra) regarding "assault weapons" back to the Central California Federal District Court with similar instructions.

    Lower courts do not like having their pee pees slapped with unpublished or summary decisions from higher courts for failing to follow clear precedents set by the higher courts. There are ultimately sanctions and consequences for judges who repeatedly render decisions and judgements that run afoul of higher court published precedents, especially very recent ones. A "published" decision is one that sets precedence and can be freely used to cite precedence until such time as it's overturned (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson, and now Roe v. Wade). SCOTUS decisions are always published. Granting review, Vacating and Remanding back is a clear message to the lower court to Do the Right Thing and usually contains some instructions about what to pay attention to the do-over. An "unpublished" decision is one that is typically made using prior precedence and therefore doesn't set precedence on its own - or that shouldn't be used as setting a precedence. The latter explanations of published & unpublished is deliberately oversimplified.

    John
    It seems to me that these states are acting with petulance and are trying to be too cute by half. It will serve them right when the Circuit Courts (or SCOTUS itself) gives them the IL treatment: "Oh, so you don't like following the law and clear judicial precedence? Well then, how about this: make a law that meets constitutional muster, or lose all of your gun laws."

    There is zero chance that this temper-tantrum throwing by the state of NY will end well for the state.
     
    Top Bottom