NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

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!
  • teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    High fees

    Severe restrictions on where you can carry violation of which makes you a prohibited person

    Lengthy training classes

    Once carry outside the home is established as a Right, it becomes very difficult to implement high fees.
     

    KingClown

    SOmething Witty
    Jul 29, 2020
    1,154
    Deep Blue MD
    This is what the left really thinks. I really don't care of the lefts thinking or how they feel. Sure they don't take my feeling into consideration.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...eyes-gun-laws-reach/ar-BB1g6jiG?ocid=msedgdhp

    Really??

    I saw where he had said this as well and I hope the lawyers are smart enough to show this to the court. He literally plain as day made it clear he is infringing and trying to take thier rights. It should make it a slam dunk case. There is no way to spin it with the words Deblabio used. I am not sure any of the libtarded justices could spin that.
     

    frogman68

    товарищ плачевная
    Apr 7, 2013
    8,774
    Once carry outside the home is established as a Right, it becomes very difficult to implement high fees.

    You new here ?? Or just started drinking early ?? :D

    These liberal @sshats will do anything to prevent peons to carry . They know it will take years to wind through the courts
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,353
    SoMD / West PA
    I saw where he had said this as well and I hope the lawyers are smart enough to show this to the court. He literally plain as day made it clear he is infringing and trying to take thier rights. It should make it a slam dunk case. There is no way to spin it with the words Deblabio used. I am not sure any of the libtarded justices could spin that.

    DeBlasio can say whatever he wants, since NYC is not part of this case.

    Hopefully, his statements will be used as additional evidence. :fingerscrossed:
     

    Maestro Pistolero

    Active Member
    Mar 20, 2012
    876
    The record check occurs annually or bi-annually or whatever. One could be the target of a warrant in between renewals. A record check would catch that.
     

    Nobody

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2009
    2,810
    Nothing is in the constitution about registering when it comes to voting.

    I am ok with that. The constitution starts out.
    "We the people of the United States" which are the citizens of said States. If you are a citizen you can vote. Birth certificate would suffice and after voting dip your finger in the purple ink so one citizen one vote.

    Show birth certificate at gun store and walk out. Works for me.

    Nobody
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I'm unable to find anywhere in the Second Amendment the words "with a permit" or "while in your home or on your land." It really is QUITE clear. fred55

    It is not as clear as you suggest. The 2A does not define the scope of the right. It is a preexisting right that you need to look elsewhere to fully understand.
     

    fred55

    Senior
    Aug 24, 2016
    1,772
    Spotsylvania Co. VA
    It is not as clear as you suggest. The 2A does not define the scope of the right. It is a preexisting right that you need to look elsewhere to fully understand.

    I think the intentions of the founding fathers and their Nation creating documents are pretty clear to the majority of citizens. It's the wordsmiths that contort the words and attempt to bugger the Constitution to meet their goals. IMHO fred55
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    It is not as clear as you suggest. The 2A does not define the scope of the right. It is a preexisting right that you need to look elsewhere to fully understand.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824

    "the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” Id., at 592. This right was “enshrined with the scope [it was] understood to have when the people adopted” it. Id., at 634. To determine that scope, we analyzed the original meaning of the Second Amendment’s text as well as the historical understanding of the right".


    Just think this dissent we will see much of the same language. I'm sure Justice ACB will weigh in.
     

    fscwi

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 21, 2012
    1,536
    You new here ?? Or just started drinking early ?? :D

    These liberal @sshats will do anything to prevent peons to carry . They know it will take years to wind through the courts

    DC requires 16 hours of classroom training and a 2 hour live fire range test to qualify for a permit. The range test consists of 10 rounds at each of five distances: 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Timed and scored, starting from holster with by sides. You have about 1 second per round at the closer distances and nearly 2 seconds per round at 10 and 15 yards. Highest possible score is 500, I think you have to get a minimum of something like 380 to pass. Must be renewed every 2 years, and 4 hours of refresher classroom training and completing the range test again are required for renewal. The instructor will have some practice time with you and do a practice cycle run through of all the test shots before the test if given.

    Depending on what certified trainer you use, costs for training, DC permit fees, range fee, and ammo, you can be looking at $500 and up for the initial permit.
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,584
    Glen Burnie
    I think the intentions of the founding fathers and their Nation creating documents are pretty clear to the majority of citizens. It's the wordsmiths that contort the words and attempt to bugger the Constitution to meet their goals. IMHO fred55
    Scalia said as much in his opinion in Heller v. DC.

    Scalia was of the mindset - and he backed it up with reference after reference from the writings of the Founders - that the Bill of Rights was written in simple language so that it could be understood by everyone, and "the People" meant everyone.

    He further went on to show that the operative clause, "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was not defined or limited by the prefatory clause, but rather that a well-regulated militia made up of the people could only exist IF the people were armed, and therefore in the minds of some of the Founders, "the People" - meaning everyone - SHOULD be armed.
     

    frogman68

    товарищ плачевная
    Apr 7, 2013
    8,774
    DC requires 16 hours of classroom training and a 2 hour live fire range test to qualify for a permit. The range test consists of 10 rounds at each of five distances: 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Timed and scored, starting from holster with by sides. You have about 1 second per round at the closer distances and nearly 2 seconds per round at 10 and 15 yards. Highest possible score is 500, I think you have to get a minimum of something like 380 to pass. Must be renewed every 2 years, and 4 hours of refresher classroom training and completing the range test again are required for renewal. The instructor will have some practice time with you and do a practice cycle run through of all the test shots before the test if given.

    Depending on what certified trainer you use, costs for training, DC permit fees, range fee, and ammo, you can be looking at $500 and up for the initial permit.

    And Frosh will ensure that is nothing compared to MD's shall issue scheme they will try everything to stop us from legally carrying
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Scalia said as much in his opinion in Heller v. DC.

    Scalia was of the mindset - and he backed it up with reference after reference from the writings of the Founders - that the Bill of Rights was written in simple language so that it could be understood by everyone, and "the People" meant everyone.

    He further went on to show that the operative clause, "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was not defined or limited by the prefatory clause, but rather that a well-regulated militia made up of the people could only exist IF the people were armed, and therefore in the minds of some of the Founders, "the People" - meaning everyone - SHOULD be armed.

    That is not exactly what was said in Heller. The part you are missing is that "Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them" One of the things that was said was that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." There are some limitations.
     

    Trbo6gn

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 30, 2011
    2,801
    Harford Co.
    DC requires 16 hours of classroom training and a 2 hour live fire range test to qualify for a permit. The range test consists of 10 rounds at each of five distances: 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Timed and scored, starting from holster with by sides. You have about 1 second per round at the closer distances and nearly 2 seconds per round at 10 and 15 yards. Highest possible score is 500, I think you have to get a minimum of something like 380 to pass. Must be renewed every 2 years, and 4 hours of refresher classroom training and completing the range test again are required for renewal. The instructor will have some practice time with you and do a practice cycle run through of all the test shots before the test if given.

    Depending on what certified trainer you use, costs for training, DC permit fees, range fee, and ammo, you can be looking at $500 and up for the initial permit.

    So pretty much the same requirements that Maryland currently has to apply for a permit except with a very high likelihood of a permit being issued by DC. In Maryland you do the training, live fire, fingerprinting, application fee and they deny you because you don't have what they consider G&S.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    You don't seem to grasp the concept that "Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have at their adoption."

    Oh yes I do. I stated explicitly that the scope of the right is obviously going to be limited to whatever the founding generation understood it to be.


    There was no unlimited right to carry whatever, wherever, and for however you want. One of the restrictions on carry was concealed carry.

    I've not seen any evidence to date that the founding generation, much less the authors of the 2nd Amendment, believed that. The only case I am aware of that could possibly have been decided by the founders' contemporaries was Bliss v Commonwealth, and that case says that the 2nd Amendment unequivocally protects concealed carry.


    The historical understanding for why concealed carry was prohibited is to prevent arms from being used for "nefarious purposes". Today one should be allowed to conceal carry because it is not exclusively associated with "nefarious purposes", but that does not change the fact that carrying for "nefarious purposes" is still prohibited because that is what was historically prohibited.

    Carrying for "nefarious purposes" may be prohibited, but you're not allowed to infringe upon the right in order to deal with that.

    Previously, it was presumed, at least by the generations that came after the founders, that if you were carrying concealed, that it must have been for "nefarious purposes". Which is to say, the very act of carrying concealed meant that you were doing so for "nefarious purposes". The two were considered synonymous.

    But as I said, more recent experience blows that presumption out of the water. Absent that presumption, there is nothing to consistently indicate whether or not one is carrying for nefarious purposes. And even if there were, you're not allowed to forbid whatever indicator that may be if you would be infringing upon the right in the process.


    You're going to have to explain Bliss v Commonwealth if you're going to insist that the founding generation understood concealed carry to not be part of the right.

    And you're also going to have to explain why the Supreme Court settled upon a definition of "bear" for 2nd Amendment purposes that explicitly includes concealed carry, if concealed carry is somehow not part of the right. If concealed carry is not part of the right that the 2nd Amendment refers to when it says "bear", then the definition of bear must reflect that. The Bliss judges apparently understood this.

    Now, I've called for this before (though perhaps not here), and so I'll do so again. If someone can supply substantial evidence that concealed carry was understood by the founding generation or, better yet, by the authors of the 2nd Amendment, to not be part of the right to bear, then that will obviously shift my thinking here. But to date, the only real evidence I've seen comes out of Bliss, and it is a contrary indicator.


    The carry permit is simply an extension on the "nefarious purposes" to make it easier to identify those that do not commit "nefarious" acts. It is consistent with the historical understanding of the right.

    Consistent or not, it's not allowed if it infringes upon the right. The scope of the right isn't "bear only with a permit", it's "bear", period. And like I said, a permit swings the presumption to one of guilt instead of one of innocence. But it is only the latter that is appropriate in a system of ordered liberty.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    You don't need a permit system for that. A driver's license can indicate prohibited status.

    Furthermore, a permit creates a "guilty until proven innocent" standard, which is an anathema to our ordered system of liberty.

    A permit is something you get for a privilege, not a right, unless it is for some kind of exercise of a right that would otherwise interfere with another right.

    "Prohibited from firearms and voting" or similar language branded on felons' drivers' licenses would be just fine with me.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,434
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom