The governor of NY pretty much told the Supreme Court to piss off.

[fightforfreedom]

She is going to fight. She said she is going to look at their decision very closely and take action. I have no doubt she will find loop holes around the Republicans decision because they are stupid fools.

Now that the Supreme Court gave people the right to get a permit to carry a gun, states have the right to raise the price for that permit. They have the right to say you must have so many hours of training before you can get your permit.

States can make the supreme courts decision very expensive. This could back fire on the Republican idiots sitting on the court.

[roamer65]

1. NY and CA are going to fight it.

Effectively nullifying the ruling by establishing specific and expensive criteria.

[33taw]

3. Tge NRA will help pay for permits.

[atreides1]

8. Sure they will!!!

About the same time Clarence Thomas resigns and his wife admits she was trying to stage a coup!!!

[ZonkerHarris]

10. The NRA that filed for bankruptcy? okay

[33taw]

34. If not the NRA another supporter will foot the bill. I think a mental health stability test would

more useful. To begin with - why do you need an assault weapon?

[gldstwmn]

75. Their bankruptcy was denied.

Their lobbying arm The Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is probably flush.

[ZonkerHarris]

78. then im cool with draining their resources for overpriced permits

[Zeitghost]

13. You can get a permit quite easily in most of CA already.

Outside of LA county and a handful of the small Bay Area counties, they hand them out regularly. I don't see that changing and if anything, it will get easier in those I mentioned.

[Polybius]

22. Although I agree, this could have scary consequences

The first steps of the breakup have begun.

[33taw]

2. Create a mental fitness test.

[Irish_Dem]

67. Easiest test in the world to create:

1. Are you a MAGAT?

If respondent answers in the affirmative, they are crazy.
Gun denied.

[33taw]

70. Yep. Why do you want an assault rifle? - you must be crazy.

[Irish_Dem]

71. Just creating the test is insanity.

[hlthe2b]

4. Require insurance to include some very costly provisions.

[ZonkerHarris]

11. THIS

[thatdemguy]

15. They actually touched on that with the Surety stuff

And said it did not apply until after you got in trouble. Probably phrased that way to give a way to attach it later.

[hack89]

5. All she has to do is write a law that clearly lays out the criteria for concealed carry

its not complicated.

[The Magistrate]

14. None Sounds About Right, Sir

Bearing arms in public disturbs the peace.

I've never met a person who wished to go armed about the city who ought to be allowed possession of anything more lethal than a popsicle stick.

Realization of fantasies derived from old westerns and action flicks, and gratification of sexual fantasies bound up with exercise of power over others, are no basis for public policy.

Nor is the intention your political partisans be armed to the teeth in furtherance of keeping or gaining a grip on government a sound basis for laws regarding weaponry.

[hack89]

21. People that carry illegally will always be the greatest threat.

I am not a big supporter of public carry because I don't see the need is but I also understand concealed carry licensing is not a deterrent to violence - violent people are the ones most unlikely to meet any legal requirements for gun ownership and will simply carry illegally.

So NY simply needs to lay down very strict requirements for concealed carry. But they also need to crack down on illegal gun use.

[The Magistrate]

37. I Largely Agree Here, Sir

One of the problems is the murder lobby's success in hamstringing law enforcement, making it difficult to trace the chains of purchase which equip the persons who go armed with criminal intent.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

81. "None" would be fair, maybe passing review by the Extreme Court.

"None" doesn't involve the rich or celebrities or otherwise politically connected getting preferential treatment of their applications for concealed pistol licenses. The answer is always "no".

But, I'm sure "none" would have pages of exceptions describing who would be eligible, based on employment, etc.

[hot2na]

51. How about mandatory $10K per year registration fee + insurance.

Hey, we pay registration and insurance to drive a car. Why can't we apply it concealed carry?

[hack89]

53. Why not. Let the courts sort it out. nt

[former9thward]

63. Sure and raise the price to protest up to 100k.

Same principle and same argument.

[AntiFascist]

72. Require registering with a militia, then the militia may be "well regulated" by the State...

it could be argued that the 2nd Amendment was vague for a reason, leaving the "right to bear arms" up to the states to decide how to implement. Any Federalist Society member should acknowledge this.

[hack89]

80. Heller made that all moot

Considering Obama, HRC and Bernie consider the the 2A to protect and individual right, your view is not even mainstream for the Democratic Party. Under Obama and HRC, the party platform specifically said that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

[Frasier Balzov]

6. What will become expensive is the civil rights money judgments

which will be draining the NY state treasury if it tries to stand in the way.

Every incentive is now in place to carry guns and shoot first.

[The Grand Illuminist]

25. Flawlessly logical.

And if they up the price for permits, they might find themselves in more very costly legal entanglements of price gouging.

[we can do it]

43. Like the legal entanglements the oil industry is facing for price gouging?

[The Grand Illuminist]

44. Yep.

nt

[we can do it]

46. Which of course means none.

[The Grand Illuminist]

48. Yet.

But it is being worked on by attorneys and members of congress to make the oil companies accountable.

[fightforfreedom]

7. She has a lot of options.

The courts decision has loopholes you can drive a truck through.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

9. Imposing a financial burden won't work

That will get tossed before it even hits Court of Appeals level. Punitive financial barriers that put it a right out of reach of the average person will be seen as effectively banning that right.

Illinois had the same problem a few years ago when their may issue law got tossed. NY and the other states can follow their lead with similar laws.

[The Magistrate]

17. Doesn't Mean It Shouldn't Be Kept Up, Sir

How many laws in obvious violation of Roe were passed by legislatures in red states? Keep them coming, a new one every day. Make them show their hand, reveal beyond cavail just how bankrupt the thinking behind these claims of universal armament are.

[ripcord]

23. And when SCOTUS decides states can't be trusted to fairly implement the permit process?

They could just say no permits required at all. People don't want to admit that at this point the 2nd has the same standing as the 1st since it has been joined with the 14th but it is the reality we have to live with.

[The Magistrate]

40. No Need To Stop The Barrage, Sir

Martingales don't really work with money in casinos, but seem to in heated politics.

[FelineOverlord]

12. Her tweets (and the replies) is ON FIRE

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[fightforfreedom]

18. Thank you.

[The Grand Illuminist]

28. In NY......

How many does it take to call a quorum? In case the right decides to skip out of special sessions.

[Nevilledog]

35. Video

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

The Recount
@therecount
·
Follow
Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) says she is “prepared to call the legislature back into session” in response to the Supreme Court striking down the state's concealed carry law:

“We’re not going to cede our rights that easily, despite the best efforts of the politicized Supreme Court.”


Watch on Twitter
8:15 AM · Jun 23, 2022

[Bonx]

16. We need to make sure only the rich & politically connected

can continue to get permits. This 'shall issue' based on objective requirements is BS!

[thatdemguy]

19. The states might try to push back some, but

It will be limited and measured. If they are not careful they can cause it all to come down. DC was legal un permitted carry for a week or two due to how they tried to end around heller.

A fee of 200 might be legal, but if they tried to make 1000. I could see it being attacked and it turning in to no fee allowed. All you would need is one POC applying and saying the fee is designed to keep poor POC from applying.

[ForgedCrank]

20. Seems to me

that this would be short sighted and as a consequence, very discriminatory.
Proposals like that will do nothing more than make sure poor people cannot get a firearm, and guarantee rich people can.
And knowing that minorities are generally in the lower income brackets, guess who this punishes the most?
In my opinion, there is a concept here that needs to be challenged directly rather than using loopholes and work-around legislation that always gets stomped out by the higher courts.

And yes I know, that concept is a tough nut to crack, so far it has proven almost impenetrable. But that is how it needs to be addressed, and with the consent of the population.
I'm not going to pretend to have the answers because I don't. But we've been watching this for decades now, and nothing has worked with these methods.

The Constitution protects us, but it also protects them. That is the difficult nature of most of these problems. We can't just pretend it's not there. What we do know is that challenging it in this manner has a very high failure rate. Relying on The Supreme Court being loaded with justices of our political persuasion is not the best approach, as we should have learned by now. The Constitution can be changed, it's been done before, and that is the only real answer that can stand the tests of time and courts.
I know this isn't necessarily a popular position here, but reality is what we need to face if anything will ever be done.

[fightforfreedom]

24. You may be right. But I see this decision as something that is very flawed.

Sensitive areas? What does that mean. This decision is going to create all kinds of legal problems, challenges. Can you imagine people with concealed weapons on the NY subway. Concealed weapons at a sports arena.

[The Grand Illuminist]

27. Sports arenas are up to the owners.

Since they are privately owned.

[ForgedCrank]

30. I'm not

in denial about the issues, they are very apparent and on the news almost daily.
My point about "sensitive" was that there are many here who disagree with me on this subject (and many others for that matter) and I generally get a very unpleasant reaction to my position on these topics.
I always at least try to take a logical approach to most things, and this one is no different. That doesn't sit well with a lot of people. It doesn't mean I reject the idea that there is a problem. I also usually write replies directed at a general audience rather than an individual, and I almost always fail at making that clear, it just sounds so verbatim that I avoid it for some reason. So my apologies for that.

[radicalleft]

31. If you think that there aren't already A LOT of concealed weapons on the subway...

you are mistaken...

[wnylib]

45. But reality also says that we cannot change

the constitution in any way meaningful to gun control unless we have more Dems in Congress.

Or, if we have more justices appointed to the SC by Biden. But the problem with that is when the fascists are in control again and change the SC numbers yet again.

The SC is no longer a valid court of democracy because of its politicization that joins itself with the forces destroying democracy.

[brush]

26. It's hard to grasp the callous, tone-deaf stupidity of Thomas/SCOTUS'...

ruling. I mean have they even buried all victims in the NY and Texas mass killings yet, and they in their exalted judgment from on high make it easier to get guns out onto our streets and into our schools and libraries, and theaters and restaurants and malls and schurches?

Everyone please be very careful when out and about. Make sure you don't accidental bump anyone while shopping, or have a minor disagreement about who got to a parking space first, be very poiite to anyone ridiculing you if you still wear a mask, and for God's sake, DO NOT GET IN ANY CONFRONTATION WITH ANY KARENS out there as theypre already crazy and adamant, and they may now be packing heat.

I myself will limit by ventures out. I'm considering cutting out grocery store visits by just shopping on my stores web site and having food delivered. Not a bad idea really, what with gas prices and the stochastic terrorism/shootings out there.

[Sanity Claws]

29. If the Supremes are into original intent, NYS can allow people to carry muskets

without concealed weapons permits but not any other weapon.

Updated to clear up my misunderstanding of ruling.

[PTWB]

36. Should the government be able to censor our speech on DU on a mere whim?

After all, the internet wasn’t mentioned in the first amendment.

It’s a slippery slope to suggest that technological advancements render constitutional protections obsolete.

[Sanity Claws]

38. I was pointing out how absurd the originalism theory is

[UnderThisLaw]

32. You've succeeded

in getting direct replies and other thread participation from several of the usual suspects. Was that intentional?

[cloudboy07]

33. you have the right to gun's - no where do it say the right to by ammo ?

[ruet]

39. On What Basis Would One Ban Ammuntion?

Is it dangerous in and of itself without the ability to chamber and detonate it using a firearm? Is it more dangerous than, say, a gallon of gasoline in an approved container? This is not a real solution and, IMO, is the opposite of helpful.

[ancianita]

41. THIS. AMMO.

Ban all brands and styles of AR-15 ammo. Ban all ammo for retail sale. Ban ammo production by manufacturers. If manufacturers aren't shut down. Set all retail pricing and distribution by law:

For any and all calibers, $1,000 for each bullet. $5,000 for every clip and magazine. $100,000 for 3D printers.


As with fertilizer in large quantities, no purchases of lead, tin, copper, steel or their alloys.
Ban sales of all tool & die caliber bullet molds.


No one can claim they don't have the right to "bear arms."

[bucolic_frolic]

50. +1

The amount of money this society spends on ammo is obscene. They drive 15 year old trucks, dress like bums, live an Appalachian life, but they have money for 600 bullets every Sunday after church.

[ancianita]

52. WE

Democrats need to get moving, win in 2022, and shut down ammo.

From ammo manufacturers to retailers to gun owners, et 'em all take it to the courts. Fuck 'em.

Ammo isn't an absolute constitutional right. Tell 'em their guns are arms, it just depends how they use them. Make that shit expensive as hell and hard as hell to get.

[BidenRocks]

86. There has been a shortage of ammo

For at least 2 years now.
Have you noticed any reduction in gun violence?

[ancianita]

87. A shortage is PR. There's no shortage for AR-15 ammo.

Of course everyone's noticed that uptick in gun violence that disproves the hype about ammo.

Now with the latest Roe overturn, women have even more incentive to arm themselves against rape dads, date rapists and rapists.

As far as I'm concerned, anti-Roe men are gonna fuck around and find out.

[sarisataka]

55. The 1st says freedom of the press

But doesn't mention ink. Would it be legal to ban or prohibitively tax ink?

(Don't bother looking, it has already gone to SCOTUS and the answer is no.)

[Lonestarblue]

42. Make the permits incredibly costly, say $5,000.

Then institute the most extensive background checks ever developed, down to review of all social media, organization memberships, and where you eat dinner most often and who you eat with.

My God, this SC is even worse than I thought it would be, and I had very low expectations for it. I guess we should have expected this to when they ruled back during the pandemic that the government had no right to protect the public by restricting the number of people who could be in churches at one time. Only the white evangelicals had a problem with this, and the SC sided with them.

[Rhiannon12866]

47. From Twitter:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[aggiesal]

49. Add liability insurance if you want a permit to carry ...

States should mandate liability insurance to protect itself,
so that people can't sue the state for issuing permits to just anyone.

Amount of liability should equal at least the same amount as vehicles or higher.

[sarisataka]

54. The highest minimum liability for auto

In Alaska and Maine at $100k. The lowest if Florida at $20k.

I practice what I preach and carry $1M+. It costs about $20/month.

[aggiesal]

61. Minimum in California is $25,000 ...

Or if you don't want to pay for Liability Insurance, you can post a $25,000 bond.

I don't think people know that.

[sarisataka]

64. I was using per accident

Per person is about half.

There are a few states that allow 'proof of financial responsibility' or similar where posting a bound in lieu of insurance is allowed.

[ruet]

66. Add Liability Insurance If You Want to Burn the Flag.

Add liability insurance if you want to have an abortion or write a book or petition the government or go to church. Driving a vehicle isn't in the constitution. This isn't' going to be solved via legislation. It must be resolved by a change or repeal of the 2nd amendment. That isn't going to happen.

[aggiesal]

73. I haven't read today's decision ...

Last edited Thu Jun 23, 2022, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)

But applying financial constraints does not violate the 2nd amendment because
it's not stopping individuals from purchasing guns, only to have a permit to carry the gun.

And if the court and people actually realize what the 2nd amendment says, it was never designed for everyone to own a gun.

If you read the Federalist Papers, which were essays by the writers of the Constitution defending the Constitution,
the 2nd amendment was designed so that the states could have a militia that the federal government could call up and to protect the state when needed.

The federalist papers even mentioned that the militia should meet once or twice a year to practice their aiming, since they were notoriously bad shooters. Also to learn discipline and establish a chain of command. All lacking during the Revolutionary War.
Today that would be the State and National Guard.

If you interpret it as the Constitution framers, if you want a gun, join the guard.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. [Hamilton - Federalist 29]

That's why the first half says
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...

I realize this is not what some people in the forum believe or want, so I'm expecting a lot of flak.

[lostinhere]

77. I'm currently reading the opinion

I believe you are correct.

Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence:

Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns
for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6
States including New York potentially affected by today’s
decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States. (page 80 of opinion downloaded from SCOTUS website)

Justice Alito's concurrence:

The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore
holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose.
That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns. (page 71 of opinion downloaded from SCOTUS website)

[samsingh]

56. i don't believe the us supreme court is legitimate. i believe it is corrupted by criminals

[dalton99a]

76. It is a fucking whorehouse

[samsingh]

85. agreed. I believe they are criminals.

[Pepsidog]

57. NJ almost impossible to get carry permit. I think like 2,500 a year issued. Can't see NJ not

fighting back.

[The Jungle 1]

58. What about states rights.

I thought repukes were all for states rights.

[Historic NY]

59. I have a NYS pistol permit I got when I was 21yrs old, it was deemed necessary by

My employer, a local government. I filed the paperwork and print and was interviewed by the Family Court Judge, who issued it.
It was difficult to get a full carry permit and usually the court would add restrictions to go hunting, fishing large sums of money, business, security guard, target shooting, etc. As I understand sometime back in the 40s a permit was issued and that person went and killed his spouse, the Judge issuing was sued and hence the restriction component was added by the court. I rarely carry now after doing so for more than 30yrs. I still go to a licensed range to practice, and have to recertify my permit every 5 yrs. A change made in NY in 2018-19. There has been an increased pressure on Sheriffs to push through permits by various groups. Judges sign off at their convenience once the checks are completed. This process has been adapted and modernized, but apparently some were not satisfied. They want them cranked out.

[BradBo]

60. The supreme courts just made 🐝 nest of cases to deal with in the future.

Between Muslim and non Christian religions suing states for tax dollars they now will be dealing with gun cases from allot of states.
Good job ya rubes.

[former9thward]

62. No they can't raise the price of permits unreasonably.

That is unconstitutional. It would be like raising the cost of a permit to demonstrate to a million dollars. Do you think that would be acceptable?

[slumcamper]

65. Fundamentals

2A is crystal clear: a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. State regulation in the interest of security is the unequivocal word of the Constitution and clear intent of the Founders.

I'm unsure what the legal minds arguing for "our" side are thinking or doing. Are they presenting arguments based on this bedrock Constitutional principle, its meaning and intent? Are they? Or are they off in the weeds? And if they latter, why?

This does not seem like rocket science.

Of course, the SCOTUS may be "legislating from the bench" or adverse to Constitutional intent and meaning. If so, then state nullification of judicial rulings is the immediate recourse.

GO Team HOCHUL!

[lostinhere]

68. I'm reading the opinion...

I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. But I've been reading the full opinion and found an interesting bit of text.

The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore
holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose.
That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.

This is from the concurrence written by Justice Alito (yes, that Alito), page 71 of the opinion downloaded from the SCOTUS website.

I haven't gotten to the concurrence written by Justice Kavanaugh, but the live blogging at SCOTUSblog leads me to believe that it covers this in some depth.

This decision does not appear to be as black and white as many believe.

[lostinhere]

74. From Justice Kavanaugh Concurrence

I don't believe its as bad as some reports are make it out to be.

Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns
for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s
decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States. (page 80 of opinion downloaded from SCOTUS website)

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

82. Concurrence have zero legal weight

Thomas's opinion is the controlling opinion since all 6 signed onto it in full. What Alito or Kavanaugh wrote in their concurrences have as much legal weight as the dissent, which is zero.

[Hassler]

79. She also hit on the historical angle the Supreme Perjurers will get:

They only knew muskets in 1789, so those are the only weapons allowed. Also hefty liability insurance and maybe a surcharge on that musket ball, like around $1000.00

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

83. No on the muskets

Both this decision and a previous decision has already overruled the musket argument. SCOTUS says the 2nd Amendment protects arms that were not in existence in the 18th century.