New York Legislature passes bill that would ban guns from many public places

[In It to Win It]

The Buffalo News

The State Legislature on Friday passed a bill that would ban guns from many public places, only eight days after the Supreme Court overturned a century-old state law forcing residents to prove that they need to be armed in public before getting a permit to do so.

The sweeping legislation – which is certain to be challenged in court by gun rights activists – passed the State Senate on a party-line 43-20 vote. Then on Friday evening, the State Assembly passed the bill in another party-line vote, 91-51.

The Democrat-led bill would expand gun control in New York in myriad ways. But most notably, it would bar people from carrying guns in what it calls "sensitive locations," including:

• Government buildings.

• Schools, colleges, universities and libraries.

• Child care facilities.

• Heath care facilities.

• Places of worship.

• Mass transit.

• Sports and entertainment venues.

• Public places where alcohol is served.

• Outdoor spaces where special events are taking place.

• Protests.

• Public parks, playgrounds and zoos.

• Times Square.

The bill also bars people from carrying weapons into businesses unless those businesses allow it. That would mean, for example, that guns would be banned from supermarkets unless the store posted a sign explicitly allowing guns on the property – an important provision in the wake of the May 14 massacre of 10 people at the Tops Markets on Buffalo's East Side.

[TigressDem]

1. Well, if it is the State's right to police their population as they will in TX or FL, NY can TOO.

These people are ALL ABOUT STATE's rights when it comes to abortion because that COULD be murder of an innocent.

BUT when it comes to actual MURDER, they get all coy.

Idjits.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. And don't forget that Trump could shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it.

[TigressDem]

23. Think that is why they added Times Square to the list?

[Straw Man]

2. Some of this will stand; some will not.

The bill also bars people from carrying weapons into businesses unless those businesses allow it. That would mean, for example, that guns would be banned from supermarkets unless the store posted a sign explicitly allowing guns on the property – an important provision in the wake of the May 14 massacre of 10 people at the Tops Markets on Buffalo's East Side.

This for example. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that the exercise of a Constitutional right can't be treated as an opt-in exception rather then the rule, does anybody really think that the Tops Market shooter would have been deterred by the lack of a sign allowing him to carry his weapon into the store?

Sorry, but this kind of back-door ban wouldn't pass muster even with a moderate SCOTUS.

[FBaggins]

4. Probably the same for protests and places of worship

It does read like “SCOTUS May say that you can carry a gun… but you won’t be able to actually go anywhere with it”

[Midwestern Democrat]

18. This is what I would call unserious legislation - legislation that will never survive a court

challenge but is passed anyway just to get applause.

[TigressDem]

25. We need GUN INSURANCE for responsible gun owners. Treat it like car ownership, driving rights.

The reasoning behind people having to learn to drive, prove it and keep proving they are responsible drivers is that a car is basically a multi-ton weapon that COULD kill (and does - often even with all our processes and protections in place).

BUT a GUN IS A DEADLY WEAPON.

When they hand a soldier a weapon, they train the soldier to take it apart and put it back together, field strip it.

They teach soldiers how and when to shoot and how to deal with it in pressure situations. Same with police.

SO WHY do we treat guns in the general populace like mopeds? Even AR-15's can be bought and used without a single test passed to verify this person is able to use it without killing themselves or others accidentally, let alone be bat shit crazy enough to do it on purpose.

I guess I can understand, BB Guns are like mopeds, practice for the real thing.

Even hunting on your own land or at a shooting range I can see as not a big deal, but when a DEADLY WEAPON is going to Church, the grocery store, the mall; it needs to have enough regulation that everyone is on the same page and we don't have MASS MURDERS.

People drive ATVs and even unlicensed cars on their own property, but when we get together as a society, we have stop signs, traffic lights, rules of the road so that our interactions cause less conflict and strife for everyone involved.

Because getting in an accident and being injured or dying and wrecking your car or killing someone is going to mess up people's lives. It still does even with basic regulation, but imagine life with cars having as little common sense law applied as guns.


IF we can use our brain cells and make driving cars work with basic safety for group situations mandated for the protection of Life and Liberty for the entire population, not just car owners; then we can do it for guns and gun owners too.


THE Talking Point, if there is JUST ONE must start with, "Hey, we know there are responsible gun owners who don't go off shooting people at the mall just because AND we want to see that people who own guns meet that standard. It isn't an OFFENSE to those gun owners to have laws, we are looking to them as the EXAMPLE of how it needs to be done."

Because, honestly, that is the truth.

If everyone who picked up a gun was just going hunting with it, wanting to show off and hit a target at a range, kill some coyotes on their land, defend their home from intruders.....

IF ALL gun owners were automatically going to act that way, there would be no problem with zero regulation on gun ownership.

BUT people are human. We aren't exactly the same.

SO a basic skill level and some common sense laws regarding how people interact with a gun in a public place is as needed as drivers license tests and rules for the road.

And insurance for when even with the best of intentions people have accidents or are stupid and drive drunk, handle a gun while psychotic..... you know be human and think you can when you can't and someone else dies for your stupidity?

Well, not YOUR specifically, but you know what I mean.


RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS AREN'T THE PROBLEM or the REASON we need COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS.

AND we need them to be the example for everyone else who picks up a gun.

Gun owners probably SHOULD be self regulating, but we have seen for at least one hundred years that too many are NOT.

SO because MURDER IS ILLEGAL and people use guns to MURDER others, we need to get some way to insure that other people's stupid doesn't make someone dead for no reason.

It's time.


IMPEACH the scrotum SCOTUS of it's lying, power grabbing, legislate from the bench felons and let's get on with appointing honest, respectful, constitutional scholar types who would NEVER think of using SCOTUS as a place to rule the World.

[NickB79]

30. This has been repeated so many times here

But once again: liability insurance generally doesn't cover illegal acts.

There is already supplemental gun liability insurance available if you want it. It costs $20/month. It covers accidental shootings. So does most renters and homeowners insurance too. You may already have it and not even know.

If someone with gun liability insurance decided to go on a shooting rampage, liability insurance won't pay out.

https://www.insure.com/car-insurance/insurance-company-pays-for-illegal-acts.html

[TigressDem]

31. The insurance is for the GOOD guys.

Making it a requirement for responsible gun ownership, puts them in the clear and sets a standard.


THEN if someone fucks up, they lose their gun privileges BASED ON THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR.


It becomes possible to let them suffer the consequences of their own behavior instead of letting other people endure the consequences of their stupidity.


IT legally gives law enforcement the power to remove a weapon if it seems someone is red flagging, drunk or psychotic.

[NickB79]

36. That's not how insurance works

What you're proposing isn't insurance; it's a user fee for a constitutionally protected right. You may want to call it insurance, but insurance requires the actual insurer to pay out on claims if the basic criteria are met, which isn't possible under your proposal.

And a user tax on any right doesn't stand up even in a liberally held court.

[TigressDem]

38. You have every "right" to be rich in your pursuit of happiness.

Doesn't mean someone is going to hand you money and make it happen.

You have every right to live in a nice house and drive a great car.

Doesn't mean you get if for free or are not bound by the laws of your state around the purchase and use of these.

Any one person's rights can NOT trample on any one else's and basic insurance has a high deductible and plenty of clauses that leave the insured who WILL abuse their privilege as the one who suffers.

Someone whose gun accidentally misfires when they set it down and knocks out a street light. I can see that getting paid.

But willfully driving your car into a crowd of protestors isn't covered by insurance either, but because you are in the system, you can be held accountable.

WITH FREEDOM comes responsibility.

MURDERS LOSE THEIR FREEDOMS ALL THE TIME because they chose to break the law.


WE need a way to sort out the types who are a danger to themselves and others and limit their right to possess a gun.

The rights of the many STILL outweigh an individual's right when it comes to not being murdered in cold blood.

What's the matter?

Aren't gun owners MANLY enough to show they are responsible?

PLEASE.

Look how much that stupid kid in Texas paid for the AR=15 and rounds.

PEOPLE FIND money for what they think they need.

[NickB79]

46. You still haven't explained how your "insurance" plan would work

Despite that long string of words and CAPITALIZATION strung together.

But willfully driving your car into a crowd of protestors isn't covered by insurance either, but because you are in the system, you can be held accountable.

Yes, you are held accountable, because you broke multiple laws, not due to insurance. Someone with NO car insurance is held just as responsible in that scenario.

[TigressDem]

49. Car ownership requires a transparent process and people have to identify themselves.

Insurance is part of that process and incentivizes responsible behavior and there are consequences to behaving irresponsibly in a car whether or not it rises to the level of vehicular manslaughter.

There are stop signs. Red lights and green lights. Turn signals. Bike lanes. Speed limits. All sorts of ways that cars and people are sorted so things work together instead of having cars run rough shod over everyone because they are bigger.

How do we know if someone is a "red flag" with a gun?

IF we had a standard that gun owners, like car owners are held responsible to uphold then when they deviate significantly from that standard, they get some feedback, a warning, maybe a ticket.

If they are publishing manifestos threatening to go kill people, because they agreed to uphold a standard of responsible behavior, they can lose their insurance and their gun. Right now DHS will investigate threats to bomb government agencies, but what about threats to go out and murder people because they are gay, black, Muslim or whatever they find worthy of death?

Insurance or designating these hate groups as Domestic Terrorists would work.

Insurance defines a standard of responsible gun ownership. Once that is established we can confront those who might be spiraling out of control and get them the help they need to solve their problems without shooting people.

Someone with NO car insurance loses that car until they get it set up properly. So they have MORE consequences.

People who refuse to show they are responsible gun owners who get caught with guns and acting out, will get more consequences which will discourage acting out because they won't want to get caught and have to suffer.

[Amishman]

50. It also would never survive the new scrutiny under Bruen

As there is no equivalent 18th or 19th century insurance mandate to serve as it's textual and historical basis

[TigressDem]

56. Bruen ONLY dimissed the requirement "to prove the need to carry for self defense"

https://www.everytown.org/what-you-need-to-know-nysrpa-v-bruen/

On June 23, the Supreme Court ruled in NYSRPA v. Bruen, striking down an important component of New York’s concealed carry law. That component requires applicants for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public to show “proper cause,” i.e. a bona fide and particular need to carry a firearm for self-defense. The law has been in effect for more than one hundred years. Five other states have similar requirements: California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. These states have some of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country.


....


However, the Court made clear that states are still allowed to require a license to carry a firearm in public, and expressly declined to interfere with the public carry regimes of all the remaining states—including those that require firearm training and deny applicants who pose a danger to public safety. The Court’s opinion makes clear that states can continue to require applicants to meet public safety requirements before carrying a gun in public. In addition, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of laws prohibiting guns in “sensitive places” such as schools, government buildings, polling places, and courthouses.



Before the automobile, car insurance wasn't a thing either. People didn't insure their horse and buggy, that's for sure.

BUT just like the automobile upped the anty with increased speed and the weight likely to be deadly to people in an accident, the modern day guns with mega magazines have upped the anty and made the world less safe.

Just like the automobile came on the scene and once Henry Ford made it affordable, they were all over the place, guns are available in large quantities.

With no clear way to show that someone who purchases the gun can safely operate it, it's an accident waiting to happen.

Except for one silver lining. Responsible Gun Owners. Those people who use common sense and use guns for their intended purposes; hunting, target practise, self defense.

Maybe we don't need insurance, just a standardized way to evaluate people can safely operate a gun and know what are valid reasons to use a gun and what aren't.

Like drivers liscenses have drivers review the safety laws in their states and become familiar enough with them to obey the traffic laws while operating the vehicle, people get tested for the gun they wish to operate.

Military already trains soldiers to use their guns, care for their guns, field strip them and properly use them in stressful situations. Some adaption to civilian life, but something that puts a few lines around what is proper form.

[Amishman]

79. You are incorrect, please read this WaPo article which confirms what I said

The opinion’s greatest impact will probably come when lower courts begin to apply the Supreme Court’s new legal framework for gun rights in future cases. That framework requires judges to decide Second Amendment challenges by looking only to history, upholding contemporary laws with historical antecedents and striking down those without.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/bruen-clarence-thomas-supreme-court-second-amendment/

Thomas could only directly overturn the statute in front of him, so he set the table for countless new challenges to tear down everything else.

[Ohio Joe]

35. By that reasoning, we should have no laws...

"does anybody really think that the Tops Market shooter would have been deterred by the lack of a sign allowing him to carry his weapon into the store?"

Does any law prevent the criminal who breaks it? People commit crimes every day, should we get rid of any law that gets broken because it did not stop a crime?

Silliness.

[TigressDem]

39. It's giving the stores the power to say, "NO" on their own property.

It allows them to call the police and have someone removed.

It puts the authority of the State of NY behind people who don't want other people's guns in their faces all day long.

I support your right to whatever love pursuit you want, but I prefer not to wander down isle 8 in my grocery store and seeing you and someone buck naked going at it.

Same with guns.

Keep it at home to protect yourself. Go hunting or to the target range. Show it off at gun shows. Make a shrine for your best ones.

Whatever. Just get that shit out of my face.

[Ohio Joe]

41. Well said

[TigressDem]

43. Thanks

That's what I like about DU.

Gives me a reason to dig deep and think things through so I really know how I want to put myself out there politically.

Even people who disagree are part of the process and often give me needed perspective.

And a mean text is better than getting punched in the nose or shot on the street, so there is safety to think of as well.

[Straw Man]

47. Property owners have always been able to ban guns on their property ...

... simply by posting a sign. The new law says that the "NO" is automatic unless express permission is publicly posted; that a sign is not required to ban guns -- it is required allow them. That is quite a different matter. It essentially says the right does not exist unless it is granted by each property owner on an individual basis.

New York is not an open carry state. No gun will ever be "in your face." Concealed carry is the only permissible form of carry in NY State.

Please read the relevant statutes.

[TigressDem]

48. It isn't about statutes, because THIS is a CHANGE to statutes - the new normal.

Basically, the State is taking the heat about not allowing guns in businesses, UNLESS the business is fine with it.

Many might be fine with it. But the gun culture is so openly viscous right now that these people think they own the world because they are practicing their 2nd Amendment rights.

Sorry, but the right to life and liberty et all came in The Declaration of Independence. It is a FIRST right, not the Bill of Rights which was added and needed, but without LIFE there is no Liberty or OTHER rights to speak of and we have people bringing guns to places and just shooting because they can. It has to stop.

RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP needs to become the new norm.

We aren't a nation of toddlers. Parents have a right to protect their children from adults who are acting like children.

"It's MY RIGHT to have a GUN."

"I can do what I want with it."

"You can't make me."



Wahhhh wahhh wahhh.




They need to get over it.



When enough people have abused their gun rights, action must be taken to preserve the Life and Liberty of the citizens and keep society civil so we don't wind up going to war.


When that side grows up, we can ease up on regulations.


We can even give people a tax write off for their insurance if they have no incidents in a year.


Responsible gun owners should NOT have to suffer.


But people have been using the Second Amendment to start accumulating weapons to start another Civil War, and this one is as the other was Civil in name only.

Either we get this shit under control of some sort or America IS NO MORE. The rich will rule with their Second Amendment Monkeys patrolling and propaganda on Faux News telling people what to think and the Kremlin back to gouging us on oil prices.



The Second Amendment isn't a fucking sacrament. It's a right to protect the country from THIS VERY KIND of Insurrection.


When it's abused, We The People have every right to nail it down until people come back to their senses.


People who are a danger to themselves and others when carrying a gun simply should not be allowed to carry until they get their mental issues handled. PERIOD.


Enough is enough.


Too many have died for gun owner's pride.

[uponit7771]

64. +1

[treestar]

72. they probably have that right now

like freedom of speech, a private business is not the government. It is the government that cannot prohibit speech or say no guns here or there. Every time some Trumpet says putting TFG off Twitter is preventing his freedom of speech, we point out that Twitter is not the government, but a private business.

[Straw Man]

77. They do.

Now the default is that carry is allowed unless expressly banned. Post a sign in your window, and no one can legally carry in your establishment.

It is the government that cannot prohibit speech or say no guns here or there.

But that's exactly what the new law is doing. It establishes "no-carry" as the default. You must post a sign if you wish to allow it. The government is literally saying where you can and cannot carry a gun and forcing business owners to take additional steps to override the mandate. I don't think this will pass Constitutional review.

[Straw Man]

54. Absurd reasoning.

Does any law prevent the criminal who breaks it? People commit crimes every day, should we get rid of any law that gets broken because it did not stop a crime?

The concern is mass murder -- not the concealed carry of firearms in retail establishments. The former is malum in se; the latter is not. Banning the latter would only make sense if it could prevent the former. It cannot.

To suggest -- as the article does -- that the new law could have that effect is ludicrous. It will deter nothing; it will achieve nothing.

[Ohio Joe]

55. Non-sense...

If no more of these weapons can be bought, they fade away. True, they are not gone over night but when more cannot be bought and they become very hard to repair because of a lack of parts... They fade. 18YO's will not be buying them willy nilly and far fewer of these mass murders will happen. They will go down and they will be prevented.

[Straw Man]

57. We were talking about concealed carry in supermarkets.

Remember?

[Ohio Joe]

58. In post #54 you said...

“ The concern is mass murder -- not the concealed carry of firearms in retail establishments”

Yeah… I remember. So it’s back to my original thought you replied to… Care to change the topic again?

[Straw Man]

59. I know what I said.

The only issue I have commented on in this thread is the absurdity of the new "opt-in" mandate for concealed carry in New York State. The article claims that it is particularly relevant given the recent mass shooting in a Tops supermarket in Buffalo. I disputed that claim, and I still do.

Please try to keep up.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. I'm in New York and if I saw some joker in public carrying a gun, I'd assume he was dangerous

I'd run as far away as I could get and call the cops. No one should be carrying a gun in public - what are they planning to use it for? The only exceptions should be on duty police or the military in a war zone.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. I live in Florida. And if I see a gun in a public place, I'm leaving the store.

It's so fucking stupid to have to find out whether this is a good guy with a gun, or a bad guy with a gun by offering yourself as a sitting duck.

[Rhiannon12866]

7. Yikes! Same here! Why would anyone carry a gun into a store? I can answer that and it's not good

If I saw anyone in a store with a gun, I'm running or hitting the deck! And I'm pretty sure that anyone else in that store would react the exact same way!

[Scrivener7]

9. From now on, jog out and tell everyone you pass, "Gun!"

They don't know if it's a good guy or bad guy either. Most won't take the chance.

[EX500rider]

27. Florida is not a open carry state so to do so would be illegal

[Scrivener7]

8. Me too. It's time for all of us to start screaming "GUN!" in crowded

places whenever we see them. Whether they are legal in that jurisdiction or not.

Cause panic over them and police and retailers, etc, will get very tired of it very quickly.

Just run out of the store screaming, "GUN!"

In a restaurant, throw the money on the table and run out doing the same.

[Rhiannon12866]

10. That's an awfully good idea. I was just picturing this at the store I usually go to once a week

It's a local convenience store, gas, groceries, dairy products, coffee and ice cream. There are quite a few employees present at one time, it's a busy store, and the majority are young guys. I was remembering how they dealt with the mask mandate - anyone entering the store without a mask was immediately shouted down. So if anyone entered the store with a gun(!), I can't imagine they'd get too far...

[Scrivener7]

11. You know, it just occurred to me while I was reading the thread. But it IS

a good idea, isn't it? And if it was something all thinking people did, it would have an effect.

PS: I love the description of the maskless person entering your local store.

[MichMan]

20. If anyone ends up getting trampled in a stampede, too bad for them

[tavernier]

12. Shelbyville, Indiana, Big Lots.

Middle aged man, open gun in a holster, walking through the store with his mother.
I’m a retired nurse and I’ve seen a lot of creepy things in my life, but for some reason this made me really uncomfortable. I pointed it out to the checkout clerk and she whispered that there wasn’t anything they could do, and hopefully he would just leave soon. I could only think that he was hoping to attract attention by having it dangling at his hip in open view.
My daughter, who I visit twice a year, later informed me that this was perfectly legal in Indiana, but very few people actually walked around in public places flaunting a weapon.

[Scrivener7]

13. From now on, point at him and tell other shoppers, "GUN!" and jog out of the store.

These guys want to attract attention? It's time for the "be careful what you wish for" approach.

[tavernier]

14. But on the other hand

Perhaps it’s less scarier than the thousands of others who are walking around with loaded weapons and we don’t know who they are because we can’t see them.

[Scrivener7]

17. But these are the ones we see, these are the ones who are trying to intimidate

and get attention.

Time to give it to them.

[Rhiannon12866]

66. +100

[uponit7771]

67. RIGHT !! Give no one the benefit of the doubt

[uponit7771]

68. RIGHT !! Give ***NO ONE*** the benefit of the doubt

[fightforfreedom]

16. I also live in NY. I said this to my wife recently.

If the Republicans pass laws where anyone, anywhere can carry a gun it would scare the hell out of me, because if I was at a grocery store and someone walked in with a gun I might attack them in self defense. How would I know they were not a crazy person coming to shoot everyone?

[MichMan]

21. Good idea

Attack anyone you see carrying a firearm. Sounds like a brilliant plan.

[TigressDem]

32. Act like it's still COVID and order to pick up.

The store employees won't be packing guns with your groceries.

Then you don't even have to walk into the store and put yourself at risk.

[Rhiannon12866]

69. That's the thing! How are we supposed to know that we haven't walked into the middle of a holdup??

That's why I was thinking about the busy convenience store that I frequent in my travels - and how the group of young guys who work there ganged up on those who entered without the required masks! I cannot imagine their reaction to some joker who thinks it's cool to walk into their store armed! And how are any of us supposed to know their intentions??

[Straw Man]

82. That's easy.

If it's hold-up, the person is pointing the gun at people and saying "Give me your money!" If it's not, the gun is still holstered while its owner is squeezing the avocados.

[Straw Man]

78. Well ...

If the Republicans pass laws where anyone, anywhere can carry a gun it would scare the hell out of me, because if I was at a grocery store and someone walked in with a gun I might attack them in self defense. How would I know they were not a crazy person coming to shoot everyone?

You wouldn't know, because open carry is illegal in New York (except when hunting). Concealed carry is the only legal form. That hasn't changed with this new ruling.

[uponit7771]

65. +1, give no one the benefit of the doubt

[Rhiannon12866]

70. Same here!

And even in the Old West - in places like Tombstone, AZ (which I visited when my grandmother spent a winter in Arizona), those entering the town were required to leave their weapons with the sheriff.

[uponit7771]

71. +1, good point

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

15. If there is no sign on a store that specifically allows guns, ...

... does that mean the store owner is prohibited from carrying a gun in his store? Or are there exceptions? Like, for owners, police officers, security guards, armored truck attendants, money couriers, retired police and fire, high-profile politicians or clergy, bodyguards, rich people? Classes of people similar to those granted permits under the old system?

This seems like a bill that is a quick reaction, not well reasoned. Not to worry, however, I'm sure it will be clarified and defined by action in the courts. Including the U.S. Extreme Court.

[DVRacer]

19. So let's play this out 2-3 years

Lawsuits are filed and move through the court system. They are granted cert by the Supreme Court arguments are made. In a 6-3 ruling Constitutional Carry is now the law no permit required and sensitive places are strictly defined as Schools and Courthouse that’s it. Basically the law in Oklahoma will be national.

It would have been far better to adopt laws from a sane shall issue state, now you are going to end up with ours.

[FBaggins]

22. Probably not even that long

Federal district court will either pause implementation shortly after passage or the failure to do so will be appealed up the chain.

SCOTUS has been lightning-quick to “clarify” their recent rulings with shadow docket rulings

[PTWB]

24. Yeah, this is strange legislation.

It seems almost tailor made for the current SCOTUS to overturn.

[Straw Man]

60. It's a knee-jerk "Oh yeah?" response to the recent SCOTUS ruling.

The ruling actually changed very little re NY State concealed carry licensing. In practical fact, it just eliminates one question on the application -- "A license is required for the following reasons:" -- and removes the power of the issuing authority to deny a permit to an applicant who meets all the established criteria.

[Kaleva]

26. Not much different then Michigan

"Please refer to MCL 28.425o for the complete statutory text

Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian

Public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency.

Sports arena or stadium

A tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises

Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials allow concealed weapons

An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more

A hospital

A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university
“Premises” does not include the parking areas of the places listed above.

A Casino"

https://www.michigan.gov/msp/services/ccw/prohibited-premises

It's not like NY is doing push back against Supreme Court. Looks more like NY is just getting in in sync with many other states.

[MichMan]

28. Where does it say that carrying in all private business is prohibited by default in Mich.?

That is a major difference between NY and other states.

[Kaleva]

33. Where did I say there's no difference?

[Straw Man]

61. There's a huge difference.

That default prohibition is a gigantic difference. It makes it practically impossible to carry legally in NY State. You wouldn't even be able to gas up your car if you were carrying a handgun.

[Kaleva]

73. Large areas of NY are Red

I can imagine many businesses in those areas will have signs allowing guns inside the premise.

I wonder if county DAs and sheriff's would bother to enforce that section of the law.

[Straw Man]

74. But many areas are blue.

I don't expect that there will be any signs there. And who would want to risk a felony conviction by betting on the chance that DAs and sheriffs won't enforce it?

The goal here is clearly to block concealed carry by creating a chilling effect that is eerily similar to what the Republicans are trying to do with abortion.

[Kaleva]

75. Area wise, it looks like 2/3 of NY is Red

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York

And my guess is that many business in those counties will put up signs letting people know that concealed carry is allowed on te premises.

Your comment:

" It makes it practically impossible to carry legally in NY State. "

I disagree for the reason I stated. I'd agree it would be so in the more urban, blue counties.

[Straw Man]

76. Hmm ...

"It makes it practically impossible to carry legally in NY State. "

I disagree for the reason I stated. I'd agree it would be so in the more urban, blue counties.

So people in the red counties would be able to exercise rights that people in the blue counties can't? That's not a good look for Democrats, IMO.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. I applaud the new law

But this laughable:

The bill also bars people from carrying weapons into businesses unless those businesses allow it. That would mean, for example, that guns would be banned from supermarkets unless the store posted a sign explicitly allowing guns on the property – an important provision in the wake of the May 14 massacre of 10 people at the Tops Markets on Buffalo's East Side.

Does anyone really believe that this law would have made a difference in the Buffalo shooting?

[TigressDem]

34. I think IF we had this law AFTER Columbine and kept this attitude instead of going the other way...

Buffalo wouldn't have happened.

It is this CONSTANT drumming of the GUN GUN, Don't Take Our Guns mantra that is emboldening people to go over the top.


If Jeffery Dalhmer just shot his victims instead of eating them, maybe he'd still be out there too.


BUT HUGE PUBLIC OUTCRY and OPINION AGAINST something AND HUGE consequences DO make a difference, since the dawn of civilization.

For better or worse, you don't get many people stealing bread someplace where their hand can be chopped off it they do.


This law is stating, "NEW YORK is not going to put up with your BS, so leave your gun at home and have a nice day. Or bring it and WE will give you something to whine about."

Going up against a whole state is a lot of pressure to endure.


It just might work.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. We can

agree to disagree

[TigressDem]

40. On particulars, sure.

But let me ask you this, "Isn't it time we move this whole gun rights issue in a direction that ALSO respects the rights of others to live without fear of being gunned down at any moment?"

HOW we get there, not 100% sure myself, but going all "Old West" has been done. EVEN then you had to hang up your gun to enter a saloon. So it isn't like there weren't any laws even during that most wild of times.

Something has to work because all this dick wagging, gun toting crap is getting real old and dangerous and more stupid all the time as we allow it to go unchecked.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

44. Oh I agree on all points

A normally law abiding person who is carrying sees the sign, takes the gun back outside, and locks it in the car. It will stop that person from shooting someone in the store because he feels threatened or because someone cuts him in line or whatever “heat of the moment” thing that might happen.

It’s not going to stop the racist nut case who is going into the store with no other purpose than to kill people.

[TigressDem]

51. We could DO IT Old West with some updated Style....

"Coat check, Sir?"

"Sure."

"Gun check as well? We have secure lockers in multiple sizes, special lined bins for ammo and just in case always engage the safety."

"How much for all that?"

"Gun check is free, Sir. Just a way to keep everyone safe and their weapons perfectly tended so people can come in and enjoy the meal and the show with no worries."

"Hmm. And if I don't check my gun?"

"It's a $40 fine for violating the law about not having a gun in a drinking establishment. Ironically, it's been a law since the 1800's but hasn't needed to be enforced until recently."

"Well, I think it's BS, but if everyone has to check their guns, I guess it's good that it's free."

[SickOfTheOnePct]

52. And do you believe

That someone who is coming in with no purpose other than to kill others is going to hand over his gun at the gun check in? Really?

[TigressDem]

53. No.

What I am hoping for is that this culture of "guns are holy" can get settled down a bit.

Instead of pushing their fear buttons of having their guns taken away, make it a mundane civic duty to behave in a responsible manner with guns in public.

As many nuts out there shooting, our real issue is how freaked out the gun owners are about losing their 2nd Amendment rights.

We get the responsible gun owners to relax and show the way REAL MEN AND WOMEN act with their guns in public, and the hysteria dies down.

THEN we have more energy to devote to people who are really sickos and need help or to get locked up if they refuse to learn to solve their problems without using guns.

The reason the REICH Wing has demanded everyone needs to take their gun everywhere is to normalize the potential for using guns to solve problems out in public.

The reason they aren't acting Pro Life with children being shot in school is because they want US DEMs to freak out and enact draconian measures so they can rebel and say, "I told you DEMs are coming after our guns."

It needs to be set up in such a way that gun owners have the ultimate say in whether they keep their gun rights or lose them.

Just like people who drive drunk know they are risking a DUI or running a stop light might result in a ticket.


Gun owners have to be treated like the rest of adult world.

Your actions have consequences.

Behave in a reasonable manner when you have a gun in your hand or hand over the gun.

Your choice, but these are your choices.

[Straw Man]

62. Fear buttons.

Instead of pushing their fear buttons of having their guns taken away, make it a mundane civic duty to behave in a responsible manner with guns in public.

What to you constitutes responsible behavior with a gun in public? In your view, is there a responsible way to carry a concealed handgun? I ask because the new legislation in NY is pushing fear buttons in a major way as it sets out to pretty much eliminate legal concealed carry in NY.

I have a concealed carry permit in NY State. I have taken multiple classes on the legal and practical ramifications of carrying a concealed weapon. I am a certified instructor in firearms safety. The "mundane civic duty to behave in a responsible manner" that you describe is practiced by me and by everyone I know who has a permit. Legislation like this does nothing but create Republicans.

[TigressDem]

80. So you're a Republican now?

Yes. I do believe that responsible people can carry a concealed handgun without needing to shoot up everyone in a restaurant.

The permit process for concealed carry permit and the classes you took applied to gun owners in general would mean everyone needs a permit to use a gun and show they can use it safely and if they don't, they lose their gun rights until whatever stupid they did can be corrected.

People get drivers licenses and buy cars. No one is perfect, but when you drive drunk and get caught, you suffer consequences.

Having people get consequences for irresponsible gun behavior so they begin to REALLY self regulate to avoid those consequences is the point.

Our problem is people thinking gun rights means they can do anything with a gun and still have the right to have them.

It is somewhat true.

It needs to be conditionally true so that someone's behavior can either show them to be a safe, sane, responsible gun owner - like yourself.

OR it shows them to be irresponsible and potentially a danger to themselves or others.

Freedom to own a gun also means responsible to use it in a sane rational manner.

[Straw Man]

81. No, nor will I ever be one.

That's why I lament these tone-deaf endeavors to hand the Republicans a wedge issue on a silver platter.

It goes something like this: I live in a state -- New York -- that arguably has the toughest gun laws in the country. (California and Hawaii periodically give it a run for its money.) So when a SCOTUS decision forces NY to ease up its gun laws a tiny bit -- and that's all it really was, despite the wailing, moaning, and gnashing of teeth -- the governor and the state legislature overreact massively and come up with some new laws that are tougher than what had been considered tough enough since the passage of the SAFE Act in 2013. It has become abundantly clear that our current state government would like nothing better than to get rid of concealed carry altogether. Voila: an issue that Repubs can exploit to cement their advantage in rural areas of the state and to make inroads among independents statewide.

Your portrait of gun owners as "thinking gun rights means they can do anything with a gun and still have the right to have them" is simply not accurate, at least not in the state of New York. Gun owners here are well aware of the set of restrictions that they must abide by, no simple task as the list grows and grows.

[Straw Man]

63. In some respects, we live in different worlds.

A normally law abiding person who is carrying sees the sign, takes the gun back outside, and locks it in the car.

And I was taught in a concealed carry class that it is irresponsible to leave a gun locked in your car where it can be stolen.

It will stop that person from shooting someone in the store because he feels threatened or because someone cuts him in line or whatever “heat of the moment” thing that might happen.

Realistically, the odds of such a thing happening are very small. As a class, concealed carry permit holders have a lower rate of violent crime than the general public, being pre-screened as generally law-abiding.

It’s not going to stop the racist nut case who is going into the store with no other purpose than to kill people.

There I agree 100%.

It bears repeating that property owners in NY State already have the legal ability to ban firearms from their premises, and have had it for quite some time. This new law makes the ban universal by default, requiring the property owner to post that his/her establishment allows firearms. That is government overreach in the worst way.

[TigressDem]

42. Peace.

[UTUSN]

45. K&R