NY CCW law held to be unconstitutional

[amassi]

Back to the Supreme Court ruling today on concealed carry…

It is the correct ruling if you’re not one of those who wipe their monkey pox ridden asshole with the constitution,
But I have little hope it’ll change the landscape in clown show states like California.

All I’ve seen is Supreme Court intimidation tactics on the front end, and straight up ignoring rulings on the back end.

Laws do not apply to those in charge, and they will run the show how they please. If the ruling goes against their will, meh.
And nothing changes.

Scotus has had ample shots to shoot down California gun laws and always kicks them back to the lower court, 9th circuit, with predictable results.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[JJJ]

I’m well aware

 

[amassi]

What’s that as percentage of children aborted?

Before you use the minute example as the solution to the overwhelming majority atleast define it

Let's say it's .000001%, since let's face it the church prefers boys(maybe because they cant get pregnant?), and your comfortable exempting the abortion of that miracle then you should be comfortable with aborting all miracles.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[JJJ]

Can you start a thread about abortion?

Also I’m still waiting for the Canadian take on this Supreme Court ruling.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Can you start a thread about abortion?

Also I’m still waiting for the Canadian take on this Supreme Court ruling.

Ya, lets separate guns and abortion. More than enough arguments on both topic to have their own place on this forum.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Let's say it's .000001%, since let's face it the church prefers boys(maybe because they cant get pregnant?), and your comfortable exempting the abortion of that miracle then you should be comfortable with aborting all miracles.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I simply define a child as a child wither inside the womb or outside

You define as a cluster of cells inside the womb and I’m guessing a child out.

I see no justification regardless of conception means including your red herrings as reason to terminate and kill that child.

It’s that simple. It’s not biblical or religious based, it’s simply right to life.

 

[*zap*]

My concern is with the document and the government officials who choose to violate their oath to it....there are many, many of those....both elected/appointed and government employees...local/state and national.

 

[BjornF16]

Being this is a SCOUS ruling, how does it effect other states with restrictive CC laws.

Those six states will either change their laws to conform to the SCOTUS ruling (since it is now the "law of the land") or they will be party to lawsuits that will force them to change

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Those six states will either change their laws to conform to the SCOTUS ruling (since it is now the "law of the land") or they will be party to lawsuits that will force them to change

But, Cal. governor has already said Ca. will not to abide by ruling if the supreme court overturn R v W. abortion.

 

[BjornF16]

The Supreme Court today also diminished your protections under the 5th ammendment removing your recourse if police fail to merandize you.
Yesterday they ruled religious schools shall receive federal funding.
Talk about a diverse week of rulings.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I don't think our 5A protections were affected at all...my reading of the decision is that is protects LE from lawsuits over failing to Mirandize...and leaves it at the evidence gained from that failure isn't admissible.

Supreme Court protects police from litigation for failing to provide Miranda warnings - Washington Examiner

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that people do not have the right to sue police officers for violating their civil rights if law enforcement officers fail to provide a Miranda warning.Justice Samuel Alito authored the 6-3 ruling that was joined by the high court's Republican-appointed majority...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

As far as allowing state funding of religious schools, the Establishment Clause was never intended to prevent the government from funding or participating in religious endeavors. It was meant to prevent the government from establishing an official state religion. Just look to the practices of the 1st Congress...church services in Congress (oh the horror!).

As far as twitter birds crying about "separation of church and state"...there isn't any such language in the Constitution. In fact, the correct language would be "separation between church and state" and was contained in a letter response from Thomas Jefferson to the Dansbury Baptist Association in CT on the eve of his taking office as President.

All seems pretty consistent to me...but what do I know

 

[BjornF16]

But, Cal. governor has already said Ca. will not to abide by ruling if the supreme court overturn R v W. abortion.

Game of Lawsuits...

 

[WRM]

Game of Lawsuits...

Same as it ever was. One rarely "resolves" anything.

 

[Will_m]

Here's how that works. It's now unconstitutional. NY response: We don't care. We will put you in jail and you can use that as your defense in court. This is exactly what they do if you are caught transporting a handgun through NYC even though the Federal government says it's legal. It's the same with Marijuana, and sanctuary cities for illegals. It pretty much means nothing. Great job Supreme Court.

It most certainly means something. Marijuana is the inverse of this situation.

It will absolutely be a complete bar to prosecution by the state, and, what is more, would likely serve as an actionable basis for malicious prosecution.

 

[WRM]

It will absolutely be a complete bar to prosecution by the state, and, what is more, would likely serve as an actionable basis for malicious prosecution.

Ummm...I see you've not had an arrest on a weapons charge before. But, nice try!

 

[Will_m]

Ummm...I see you've not had an arrest on a weapons charge before. But, nice try!

I have not. And you are correct, it would not stop them from arresting you.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Just watching local LA news. It does seem todays ruling will make for a more relaxed issuing of CC permits here in Cal. State official are not happy, but say they are going to have to see how that will be worked out. some local sheriffs say they will review the ruling and go from there, others say they will follow the ruling and start accepting more application for permits. Local gun shops say there are getting ready to start the training which will be required before application is submitted.

 

[cuerro viejo]

But, Cal. governor has already said Ca. will not to abide by ruling if the supreme court overturn R v W. abortion.

If RvW is overturned via what’s been released. It doesn’t ban abortions, it just returns it to a state decision. He knows this, he just running his mouth. It becomes a state election and representation subject. Not a national federal issue. Im sure Cali will be a safe haven for the procedure

 

[cuerro viejo]

Just watching local LA news. It does seem todays ruling will make for a more relaxed issuing of CC permits here in Cal. State official are not happy, but say they are going to have to see how that will be worked out. some local sheriffs say they will review the ruling and go from there, others say they will follow the ruling and start accepting more application for permits. Local gun shops say there are getting ready to start the training which will be required before application is submitted.

It’s weird to me that you have to apply and submit an application defining a reason.

I think the CHL process is a smart one because even in states that have constitutional carry you will still have people get their CHL’s going through background and training for reciprocity.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

If RvW is overturned via what’s been released. It doesn’t ban abortions, it just returns it to a state decision. He knows this, he just running his mouth. It becomes a state election and representation subject. Not a national federal issue. Im sure Cali will be a safe haven for the procedure

So I now know. I just wasn't following RvW that close because I really don't care how it comes out.

 

[Jstumbaugh]

Local news here in NY this morning had the dems touting that " This doesn't change anything. If someone has a "premise's permit" they still can only carry on premise." I honestly don't know anyone with a "premise only permit" but I know a shit load of people that have "hunting and target only" restricted permits that are now free to carry. Albany County has been extremely tough on carry permits and I was lucky to have my restrictions lifted a decade or so ago but it took a lot of effort to get that. Ruling doesn't directly effect me but I am glad to have others having the ability to protect themselves and others. Now we need to get some schools onboard with allowing certified teachers/staff to carry on school grounds.