Here is how Everytown is spinning the hearing.
NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!
- Thread starter press1280
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! 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!
Member Benefits:
Yeah, the 1A event permit issue is non-starter when looking at the 2A.
Why do we need permits to hold some big rally in, say, a public park? Because that grants the organizers both the rights to the space and the responsibility for that space, without having to make every large event a shouting contest or a strength-of-numbers between the group that planned the event and every group that wants to prevent them from holding it. Event permits aren't about paying the government for the right to speak - it's about booking a finite, space-and-time-limited public space to the exclusion of other uses for the event. There's no parallel to a personal carry permit. A better comparison would be booking the public fairgrounds for a gun show, and getting to it before the car show people do.
Why do we need permits to hold some big rally in, say, a public park? Because that grants the organizers both the rights to the space and the responsibility for that space, without having to make every large event a shouting contest or a strength-of-numbers between the group that planned the event and every group that wants to prevent them from holding it. Event permits aren't about paying the government for the right to speak - it's about booking a finite, space-and-time-limited public space to the exclusion of other uses for the event. There's no parallel to a personal carry permit. A better comparison would be booking the public fairgrounds for a gun show, and getting to it before the car show people do.
Read how an ardent anti 2a reporter writes about the case and the oral arguments. Basically laying out the roadmap for state legislatures to define sensitive places into law.
Full article also worth reading. Synopsis is trigger happy racist white men will shoot unarmed blacks.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-gun-rifle/
Full article also worth reading. Synopsis is trigger happy racist white men will shoot unarmed blacks.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-gun-rifle/
Mike OTDP
Ultimate Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 3,324
I can see SCOTUS allowing a permitting system as a means for the Government to ensure that felons, non-citizens, and the mentally deranged aren't carrying...but I would hope they would add that states can't slow-roll the process. The burden of proof must be on the state to show that their permitting system is legitimate.
Of course we already have laws to prevent those same people from owning a firearm at all. If they're willing to break those laws, a carry permit or lack of one ain't very high on their radar.
kcbrown
Super Genius
- Jun 16, 2012
- 1,393
I'm skeptical that there's any substantial evidence of the efficacy of such a system in the first place. Someone who is intent on carrying will carry no matter what the law says. Millions of criminals over the decades since carry began to be regulated via permit have proven this beyond any doubt at all.
If a permit scheme isn't going to even dissuade criminals from carrying, then how can one possibly make any sort of claim that it's necessary for any sort of "public safety" goal?
The various mass shootings that have taken place are proof that the mentally deranged will likewise ignore such things when it suits them.
Laws which govern inherently peaceful actions (which is what carry is) are useful only to the degree that they guide the behavior of the law-abiding. So if there is any justification to permit systems, it's to be found there. But that justification has to overcome the fact that anyone who wishes to exercise his right will be unable to do so until the government manages to get around to issuing the permit in question in the first place, and the need for self-defense pays no heed to the convenience of government.
I'm similarly skeptical that permits on the fundamental exercise of the right to bear arms was something that the founding generation understood to be permissible, and since it is their understanding (including the reasoning for it) that controls, if a permit system would be considered an infringement under that understanding, then it's impermissible regardless of what a court might think.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
But will the powerful and connected who have had those permits for years give up those perks to inconvenience a bunch of upstate Republicans, or will they ignore the antis' cries in favor of their own convenience?
“…ensure… .”?
Guarantee that if there is an Orlando or Parkland type of event before the court renders their decision, that the Bloomberg funded groups are ready to tee off on it and howl about carry rights. Doesn't matter if it's unrelated to carry. As long as it involves a sociopath, a gun, and deaths that capture national attention, they will use the tragedy to dial up the pressure. There are many months before an opinion is being released, and they have very few other levers of influence in this process.
There IS one, every weekend, in Chicago. But they're not allowed to talk about that.
You're right, they need some Systemic White Sociopathy to kick in somewhere high profile.
Lot of mental gymnastics and dishonesty in this piece. He seems to be of the opinion that it's ok for people to get mugged and beaten. Also seems to question the right to self-defense in one's home.
He makes a barbed comment about Chicago being essentially shall issue and then wanted to link it to the gang violence there. He likely knows that Illinois only recently became less restrictive in obtaining a carry permit because they lost in court. People wanted to protect themselves because of Chicago's gang violence. Ordinary citizens aren't meant to be tasked to perform law enforcement and seek out those commiting crimes - so they're not going to stop gang members from killing each other. I bet at the same time that this guy's been a proponent of defunding the police. No cognitive dissonance there.
Finally, he gets off on this little dig about people carrying guns being fearful, which I find ironic, because the people complaining about the guns are the ones that are wrought with fear. I'm not fearful of law enforcement with firearms. I'm not fearful of concealed carriers with firearms. I'm also not living my life in fear of muggers on the subway or bears in the woods. But I am safety oriented and view firearms as a useful tool that I sometimes may want to take with me, as I do a flashlight, a fire extinguisher, a utility tool, a cell phone charging cable, etc. We entrust people to drive several thousand pound vehicles, deal with large quantities of flammable liquids, have all types of power tools, etc. No one is running around in fear because of these things. But if people like this writer sees a person with gun on their hip, they're likely to have heart palpitations. Hoplophobia, the fear of weapons.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,925
Are you suggesting Arkancide is in the future of the Supreme Court?
Oh, please, not another one . . .
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,925
First paragraph describes the four teenagers, each with his individual arrest record and each bearing a screwdriver, threatening Goetz on the subway as "unarmed." Doubtless merely a pack of teenaged handymen, en route to a stint of impromptu home repair.
So tired of zealots who are either willfully ignorant, or straight-up liars. attempting to play on the delicate sensibilities of the lazy uninformed.
This would be the question for a future licensing challenge. For one thing, even in constitutional carry states there are prohibited persons and the police have the ability to find out if you're legal or not without a piece of paper that says you are legit.
NY's (sometimes) 9 month wait would definitely be problematic.
I think it's an easy argument since the state can find whether you're prohibited or not right on the spot. The permit may make the job easier. It also allows for the training requirement to be noted on the permit, although, theoretically, someone could just carry a training certificate around instead.
But it's too early IMO to go after the requirement at this point.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,269
So I guess CCW of my WTF Deagle 50AE is out in OK.
You'll just have to get a .45-70 instead.
https://www.magnumresearch.com/bfr-biggest-finest-revolver/
kcbrown
Super Genius
- Jun 16, 2012
- 1,393
As the old joke goes:
A police officer stops an elderly lady for speeding, her asks for her driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. The little old lady gives him the information, along with a concealed pistol permit. Surprised, the officer asks her if she has a weapon on her presently. She tells him she has a .45 in her glovebox. The officer is impressed, and asks if she has any other firearms on her. The little old woman calmly lists the 9mm in her center console and the .38 special in her purse. Shocked, the officer asks her “What are you afraid of ma’am?” Without missing a beat, the woman calmly responds “Not a goddamn thing.”
Being armed means we can respond appropriately in the event someone attempts to do us harm. Being unarmed means we can't, and that latter is good cause for fear.
This. I started to read the article, but stopped after the whole race comparison. The guy was Hoplophobic, and you could see it. A lot of states have concealed/open carry already, no burning crosses, no wild west, and no increase in crime, so what would be different?
Q
What they think is that passing a new lot of off limits places will automatically be constitutional.
What’s the explanation going to be that malls weren’t sensitive before but now that permits are shall issue, now they are?
Know how your opposition thinks….
For me, the reason it’s worth reading that diatribe is that It’s important to always be aware of how those opposed to the 2nd amendment will work to frame their arguments. In the 60’s rights of blacks were curtailed by licensing and permit laws. In the 80’s it was the war on drugs which lead to the Assault weapons ban. The 90’s-2000 it’s for the children. Today we have come full circle and the opponents to the second amendment espouse that the proponents of the 2nd amendment have racist motivations behind our desires to remove restrictions on the right to keep and bare arms.
I still think that the messages of Everytown and MDA will have broader appeal to moderates. However the fact that some on the left are pushing the 2nd narrative towards racism means that they are grasping at straws. The fact that gun ownership among minorities and women continue to grow at a fast pace will not go unnoticed by the courts and legislatures.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter (1 Viewer)- Started by mpollan1
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
-
-