NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[2112rws]

Does a person that already has a carry permit with "while working as" restrictions still have to abide by those restrictions ?

 

[Occam]

Does a person that already has a carry permit with "while working as" restrictions still have to abide by those restrictions ?

You'd think not, but that wouldn't stop you from having to navigate a lengthy legal mess prior to MSP issuing the new guidance they're promising.

 

[teratos]

Does a person that already has a carry permit with "while working as" restrictions still have to abide by those restrictions ?

Technically, no. But you run the risk of being a test case.

 

[Growler215]

Funny to see the Governor of NY arguing for States Rights. . .

 

[Mr H]

A completely cupid stunt, this one...

Twitter slams Gov. Hochul’s anger over SCOTUS gun ruling: ‘Sorry the Constitution happened to you’

Conservatives on Twitter railed against Governor Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., for defiantly speaking out against Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding gun rights.

www.foxnews.com

I also wonder how this will effect GFSZs...

 

[Lalez]

Somebody is going to be a test case…but in all seriousness, Maryland and others has just joined the 43 other states that are shall-issue.

So happy for you guys. Carrying becomes second nature after awhile, you don’t even know it’s there half the time if you are carrying a Glock 48/43, p365/xl at 3 o clock IWB

Also watch your printing, don’t be obvious of course. No one should be printing with the pistols that I mentioned being available on the market

 

[TI-tick]

As a CA and UT CCW holder I'm looking for reciprocity in MD; actually, across all states. I would think with this decision a permit in one state would be good in another.

With the NY and CA Gov's apoplectic, you know it's a good day!
Curious that the left exults the SC when they decides things they like and then decries when the SC decides things they don't like. Mental disease.

From Newscum in CA:
"A dark day in America," he tweeted. "This is a dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states to protect our citizens from being gunned down in our streets, schools, and churches. Shameful."

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/art...s-Supreme-Court-after-gun-ruling-17260655.php

 

[Occam]

As a CA and UT CCW holder I'm looking for reciprocity in MD; actually, across all states. I would think with this decision a permit in one state would be good in another.

Reciprocity wasn't on the table in this case. The ruling doesn't tear down any existing rules in shall-issue schemes, and is silent on reciprocity as far as I can tell. Now, one could probably mount a solid case that a federally recognized right should be recognized nationally ... but saddle up for a multi-year court fight on that front, unless it can get done legislatively in a GOP congress with a 60-seat senate majority and a conservative in the White House. Again, not any time soon.

 

[Middleman]

Frosh is already being a whiny bitch.

View attachment 370209

Not sure how he can say basically we are looking into to it. Maryland was named in the opinion. Thinking he is looking to get sued again.

 

[TI-tick]

Reciprocity wasn't on the table in this case. The ruling doesn't tear down any existing rules in shall-issue schemes, and is silent on reciprocity as far as I can tell. Now, one could probably mount a solid case that a federally recognized right should be recognized nationally ... but saddle up for a multi-year court fight on that front, unless it can get done legislatively in a GOP congress with a 60-seat senate majority and a conservative in the White House. Again, not any time soon.

Agree, and I believe similarly with the mag limit laws, and AW bans, and the red flag BS, this ruling throws a wrench in the works. That makes me smile!

The seed has been planted and the anti's have their panties in a twist.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'll see her musket and raise her a Puckle gun.

I'll have a 36 gun frigate and a letter of marque.

 

[simplegreen]

Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!
Long time member, bailed to Texas 10 years ago. Happy to see this get pushed through yall. Go put in your permits now before they figure out how to block it at the state level again!

 

[elwojo]

Agree, and I believe similarly with the mag limit laws, and AW bans, and the red flag BS, this ruling throws a wrench in the works. That makes me smile!

I really never understood how red flag laws could work when they clearly violate numerous parts of the Constitution. And given that "text and tradition" are now the only test for applying the Constitutional validity of these laws, they will not be able to use public safety as the rationale for taking firearms away from someone who has not been proven guilty of a crime.

 

[Afrikeber]

So this SCOTUS decision today is kinda like Juneteenth for Maryland owners of firearms (handguns).

 

[TI-tick]

So this SCOTUS decision today is kinda like Juneteenth for Maryland owners of firearms (handguns).

Now there you go again with your cultural misappropriation...
LOL!

 

[dogbone]

Just dropping in from Texas to wish all the best to my Maryland brothers and sisters on this momentous occasion. Will hoist a cold Shiner in celebration.

 

[MDFF2008]

Why would you remove your gun in response to a "no gun" sign on a store rather than merely make sure it's adequately concealed? What's the worst that can happen- they ask you to leave?

In some states the signs actually have force of law and violation is an offense in of itself.

No Guns Allowed Signs, Force Of Law And You

Something that concealed carriers talk about a lot is whether "no guns allowed" signs have force of law. Do they? Yes, even if they don't. Read on for more...

aliengearholsters.com

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk

 

[lazarus]

I would be surprised if that isn’t one of the results that the current Nay issue, I mean may issue states are going to make posting no gun signs to have the force of law on private property.

 

[Park ranger]

A completely cupid stunt, this one...

Twitter slams Gov. Hochul’s anger over SCOTUS gun ruling: ‘Sorry the Constitution happened to you’

Conservatives on Twitter railed against Governor Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., for defiantly speaking out against Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding gun rights.

www.foxnews.com

I also wonder how this will effect GFSZs...

Would someone send her a WWNC shirt

 

[lazarus]

They're in very common use in the military. Does our military commonly hand out dangerous and unusual weapons? Are we in direct violation of numerous international treaties and accords?

Edit: Additionally, these weapon prohibitions would have to have standing from the history and tradition of the text with an understanding of the text at the point it was written.

The NFA is a prime example of something that lacks history and tradition and bans weapons that are in common use and not BOTH dangerous and unusual.

They do. Explosives for example. Flame throwers. Artillery. That would be dangerous and unusual in normal ownership. I agree warships, grenades, and cannons were ABSOLUTELY owned by private individuals in colonial times and in to the 19th century. But they weren’t in common ownership.

I wouldn’t hold your breath that even this SCOTUS is going to rule NFA needs to be done away with or that things like explosives and explosive devices should be unregulated or controlled.