The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
What does the New York Conceal Carry Law Require?
A lot.
Earlier this evening, I shared a guest post from Professor Rob Leider, who explained that New Yorkers in rural areas may be worse off under the recently-enacted legislation. Here, I'd like to flag some changes made to the permitting process.
Let's start with the good news. New York struck the provision requiring "good cause." The rest of the statute is not-so-good news for gun owners.
First, the bill offers this definition of "good moral character"
good moral character, which, for the purposes of this article, shall mean having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.
"Good moral character" is defined as "essential character." That's super helpful. Neither Justice Thomas nor Justice Kavanaugh identified "moral character" as a permissible ground for a "shall-issue" jurisdiction. This standard may not be much different than the subjective "good cause" standard. And in some regards, "moral character" is worse, because it is subject to such vast discretion.
Second, the bill requires that applicants meet in person with the licensing office for an interview. And the applicant must provide a host of information to the government:
(i) names and contact information for the applicant's current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant's home;
(ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant's good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others;
Presumably, the references will have to sign a sworn affidavit to this effect.
(iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section;
(iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and
(v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.
To be clear, even if four character witnesses attest that the applicant has "good moral character," the government can use a person's social media account to "confirm" the person in fact does have "good moral character." I am fairly certain that social media, in general, brings out the absolute worst in a person. Plus, the government can request any other information that is "reasonably necessary and related" to the process, which means any information. Here, there is such vast discretion for official to deny a person's applicant. Eugene already commented on the First Amendment implications of California scrutinizing ideological viewpoints. Here, New York is performing a similar role under the guise of "good moral character."
Third, there is extensive classroom training requirement (16 hours):
An applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements:
(a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics:
(i) general firearm safety;
(ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices;
(iii) state and federal gun laws;
(iv) situational awareness;
(v) conflict de-escalation;
(vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement;
(vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter;
(viii) conflict management;
(ix) use of deadly force;
(x) suicide prevention; and
(xi) the basic principles of marksmanship;
Plus, the applicant will need two hours in a live-fire range. And the applicant must score 80% on a written exam:
(b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test.
Fourth, the government will audit records every month to determine if there is some reason to revoke the permit:
All records containing granted license applications from all licensing authorities shall be [periodically] monthly checked by the division of criminal justice services in conjunction with the division of state police against criminal conviction, criminal indictment, mental health, extreme risk protection orders, orders of protection, and all other records as are necessary to determine their continued accuracy well as whether an individual is no longer a valid license holder.
And as I read the statute, the permit shall be revoked immediately if a problem is found.
Fifth, it is a felony to possess a gun in a "sensitive location." Where is a sensitive location? Just about anywhere, unless the place expressly welcomes guns. (Such a business would immediately be boycotted and cancelled in the Empire State.) I'll provide commentary along the way.
For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:
(a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts;
(b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services;
(c) any place of worship or religious observation;
Some houses of worship may wish parishioners to carry. But under the law, they cannot.
(d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos;
(e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults…
(f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps;
(g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities;
(h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;
(i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health;
(j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance;
(k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;
(l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health;
(m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools;
No carrying in any school. Anywhere. The hypothetical from Bruen comes to life. Is the "campus" of NYU--that is, much of Greenwich Village--a "ground" owned or leased by the institution?
(n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;
All public transit is out. And streets with bus routes may also be out. Those are most streets in Manhattan.
(o) any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;
(p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission;
Just about all indoor places of public gathering are out.
(q) any location being used as a polling place;
(r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;
Presumably, any street which is authorized for a parade, or other gathering, will not permit carry.
(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble;
My goodness. This exception can swallow the entirety of New York state. Any place where two or more people gather to express their constitutional right becomes a "sensitive place."
(t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.
And Times Square will become a 24/7 sensitive place. I'm sure New York City will stretch Times Square from Heralds Square to Central Park.
Sixth, a person has the burden to know he is in a sensitive location, even if there is no sign indicating that it is a sensitive location.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location, and such person knows or reasonably should know such location is a sensitive location.
As if the categories above were not broad enough. Now, people have the extra obligation to know a place is "sensitive."
Seventh, you may think that it is safe to leave a gun in your car. Not exactly.
No person shall store or otherwise leave a rifle, shotgun, or firearm out of his or her immediate possession or control inside a vehicle without first removing the ammunition from and securely locking such rifle, shotgun, or firearm in an appropriate safe storage depository out of sight from outside of the vehicle.
The glove box will not suffice. You must use a "safe storage depository" with a key, keypad, or some other locking mechanism. Yes, to keep the gun in your car, you must unload it, and lock it. Then put it in a safe. And you have to keep the gun out of sight. Retrieving the gun in a timely fashion from your car is now extremely difficult.
Eighth, licenses are only valid for three years. Applicants will be required to jump through all of these hoops on a regular basis.
Ninth, there is now a database to record the sale of ammunition! As I read the statute, in order to purchase ammunition, a person will have to go through the national instant criminal background check system. Every trip to the range will now require a background check.
If I made any errors with this statute, please email me. I'm happy to post corrections.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Undue burden on the Second Amendment right.
Why not require that the applicant name all the judges of the county? Each requirement should require valid evidence of effectiveness or be be void.
That level of obstruction is not really needed. Under the pre-decision practice with few exceptions only cops, celebrities, and the politically connected could pass muster. Same under the new regime. Unless you are in the privileged classes your social media accounts will rule you out, regardless of content. Trump supporter in NYC, forget about it.
Will celebrity body guards be permitted to conceal carry in Times Square?
I don’t see an exemption for those who got their carry permits under the old law, and it seems to mean that no one, outside off duty police, will be able to carry throughout much of at least Manhattan. I asked in the previous thread where were the rich and famous going to get their armed security?
The exception for security guards looks to only be their place of business, meaning more like bank security, not bodyguards.
This legislation seeks to nullify Bruen in New York. The minefield of sensitive places make lawful carry impractical if not wholly impossible. It requirements are punitive, onerous, and at war with everything the SCOTUS has said on the fundamental right of self defense outside of one’s home.
Indeed. Not unlike an undue burden on the right to abortion prior to Dobbs. Anti-abortion forces constantly pushed the limits on what constituted an undue burden and won significant ground well ahead of Dobbs. We can expect the same form the anti-gun forces, although I'm not sure how successful they will be. But litigating the issue through a series of regulations is a smart strategy.
I mean, I dont know man. Do you really want people carrying weapons in Time Square? Ever been to Time Square?
Something I am somewhat just confused on, isnt the question of, whether or not X requirement hinders the ability of someone to carry for self defense ... kind of factual? Its not like the first amendment where things are innately abridging freedom of speech, hence scrutiny standards.
The historical standard put forth by the court seems completely unworkable when it comes to purported indirect violations of the right to carry or keep. It doesn't seem like it is the place of a court to decide if X regulation is a violation ... surely it depends upon context, no? A ban on semiautomatics might be reasonable in one context but not in a context where that is the only available. These are fundamentally factual questions.
Peoples already carry weapons in Times Square. (or even more deadly CARS https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/driver-in-2017-times-square-car-attack-that-killed-1-and-injured-20-found-not-responsible-due-to-mental-illness/ar-AAYLeZV
It's obvious, if he had a concealed Car, everything would have been prevented,
Inlaws live on Long Island, haven't been "To the City" since the days of Mayor Koch (rhymes with..) who'd I rather have dead on the Surpremes than any of the current Judges except CT and Alitio
Frank
None of your criteria apply in 44 states and D.C. and the predicted blood in the streets hasn't materialized. Why do you think it applies here?
Its the most densely populated area of the United States? That if a firefight breaks out in Time Square it is damn near impossible to limit it to the assailant?
Again, context matters. The court itself said, in the majority opinion, that certain restrictions are fine, but it imposes a standard for finding that line that seems to answer factual questions about that context without properly adjudication them.
Yeah, the NYPD are the people who are supposed to be shooting bystanders in Times Square: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/nypd-shooting-2-bystanders-hurt-in-times-square/
Their highest bystander count seems to have been a year earlier: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/empire-state-building-shooting-sparks-questions-about-nypd-shot-accuracy/
That's an argument against firing in self defense when it isn't safe to do so. That's not an argument against carrying, as a prohibition on carrying at Stage 6 of your day means that you also can't carry from Stages 1-5 and 7-10, either.
This presumes that more permitted carrying will lead to firefights. But in all the other states that have shall-issue, that hasn't happened. So why are you presuming the worst of New Yorkers?
I'd get all the angst if we had data showing that states changing from may-issue to shall-issue (as my state did about 20 years ago) led to an increase in mass shootings or firefights. But I've not seen anything like that, nor am I hearing it cited in opposition to Bruen.
The presumption about New Yorkers is fear mongering to show the pols are doing something about a illusory dire threat to the public.
"But I've not seen anything like that, nor am I hearing it cited in opposition to Bruen."
My issue is less the actual outcome of such a study (most of the studies I have seen show a modest, though not that significant) increase in violence, but I concede that it can be one way or the other.
My issue is more, this isn't a legal question at all. Balancing the right to carry with the potential for violence, which of course the state as a potential for preventing, narrowly tailored ... the actual impact of restrictions in licensing on carry rights and violence, are factual questions and not legal ones. So what business does the court have here?
The business of the Court is telling a state that they can't restrict the exercise of a right for light reasons.
Even by the most exaggerated claims of danger, the odds of any given concealed carrier doing anything wrong with their gun is very tiny. By most estimates, concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than the police! You can't justify forbidding the exercise of a constitutional right on the basis of a tiny risk, or else think of the rights you could justify restricting.
You betcha. When Texas went from may issue to shall issue several years ago they kept track of crimes by permit holders. They quit doing it after two years as a waste of time in that permit holders were committing crimes less frequently than the cops.
Perhaps you can point to the "fire fights" anywhere, involving permit holders?
Violence and shootings? Sure. But not from the people that jumped through the hoops to get a carry permit.
Some people suggesting that are really desperate for "Wish Fulfillment", to bolster their unreasoning fear of the unknown.
Violence and shootings? Sure. But not from the people that jumped through the hoops to get a carry permit.
So maybe the requirement to jump through the hoops in fact screens out some who shouldn't carry?
Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf — You are so used to the blood in the streets you think you get to pretend it's natural background. Other folks reject your premise.
Of course one reason previous regulations did not show much change is because when they passed the so-called assault weapons ban, for instance, they grandfathered the existing arms. So what change would anyone expect? Want to see real change? Outlaw semi-automatic pistols, and get them out of circulation. Do you pretend that would make no difference in gun deaths?
If you want to argue rates of gun prevalence do not matter, you will have to somehow deal with the fact that if you rank states by gun deaths per capita, the high gun prevalence states line up in a parade at the bad end, and the low-gun prevalence states take the top 10 spots at the good end.
Why is that people who live in rural America, who have at least a colorable claim to be left alone to choose gun customs they prefer, do not accord that same privilege to people who live elsewhere? How do you justify that?
I am looking for a discussion, not a reassertion of rights to shut down discussion, so if that is all you can do, please just save the effort.
"Want to see real change? Outlaw semi-automatic pistols, and get them out of circulation."
Want to see real change? Put GPS ankle monitors on every male between the ages of 13 and 35 in urban areas. Make them subject to a search of their homes and persons at any time for any reason. Arrest them for any violation of any law. Do you pretend that would make no difference in violent deaths?
For some reason, leftists think it's okay to regulate gun owners prophylactically, but not okay to regulate black males that way.
Mosely, you are not trying to persuade me, so what do you think you are doing with that stupid analogy?
Break it down, show why its stupid! Because its point (which you know) is dead on in accordance: we don't infringe civil rights of the overwhelming lawful majority for crime prevention. Period.
Grifhunter — Well, that's pretty stupid. Equating to gun controls—which are not punishments, by the way—Mosley's over-the-top program of extreme violations of civil liberty only looks reasonable to someone without any sense of relative scale.
No. The reason that not much change occurred when they passed the AWB was because it banned guns based on cosmetic features which were easily removed in new guns.
Do I think outlawing semi-automatic pistols and implementing the police state needed to get them out of circulation would make a difference? Sure. But it would be outlawing nearly every gun out there. That's not a minor "common sense" step. It's a major, draconian one.
As for the ranking of gun deaths per capita, as long as you're counting suicides, which all of those studies do, it's not useful or honest.
Last, as for "rural people not according that same privileges to people who live elsewhere," why does that not apply to the rural person who doesn't want abortions happening down his road? Why does it not apply to the rural people not wanting their families degraded by having effeminate men whose idea of "family fun" is penetrating one's colon getting "marriage" license?
If more guns mean more gun deaths, why is it guns per Capita have gone up over the past 30 years while gun deaths have gone down?
Maybe people in high risk areas of getting killed are more likely to get a gun. By the way, are you including suicides on your gun deaths?
As far as this mythical discussion you claim to want to have, why "gun deaths"? Why not "gun murders"? Of course we know why you specify deaths instead of murders. It completely changes the outcome.
We also know that gun laws aren't the biggest predictor of gun murders. Vermont's gun murder rate is about 1.2 per 100,000. Washington, D.C. has a similar number of people with a rate of over 19.2 per 100,000 people.
Maybe guns aren't the problem?
Mosely, guns were a problem at Sandy Hook, and at every mass shooting, before and since. Guns are a problem every time someone who reaches for a pistol impulsively to kill herself gets a deadlier result than she would have got with a bottle of pills. Guns are a problem each time the child of an armed family member gets a hand on the gun, whether to commit mayhem or suicide, or both. Gun prevalence, by itself, is a problem.
Beyond that, guns engineered for greater lethal efficiency are a social problem—without regard for the character, intent, or prowess of the gun purchaser, because the service life of a gun typically outlasts the purchaser. What then happens to a long-held private arsenal of more-lethal weapons? It typically gets dispersed, with happenstance putting those deadlier arms by a more-random process into the hands of all sorts of folks, good and bad.
Thus it happens that police confiscations of crime guns, which used to turn up revolvers, now mostly collect semi-automatics. Given time, the cops will confront a problem to collect guns from criminals routinely defending themselves with AR-15 style weapons, with reliable large-capacity Glocks as backup.
A policy to arm everyone as a matter of right is inescapably a policy to arm criminals, drunks, would-be insurgents, the insane, the physically incompetent. It is a policy to encourage every kind of human fecklessness to go armed.
By inclination—as a long-time gun owner and hunter, when I lived in the Northern Rockies—I would back pro-gun advocacy as both an ideal worth defending, and a practical bit of wisdom suggested by history. But so long as pro-gun advocates abound, who show no deference to public needs, nor any insight into practical gun hazards which exist whether or not gun bearing is a right, I oppose the extremist policy that heedless advocacy leads toward.
At Sandy Hook it was the policy of the state that the school staff could nothing to defend themselves and their charges than pointers, white board erasers, staplers and the like.
Shameful!
Aberrational gun crimes are infinitesimally small in number compared to the percentage of lawfully owned guns. Using notorious, emotionally driven events to control policy and broad-swath infringe a civil right is regressive and immature thinking rather than rational policy.
And based on the defenselessness of classrooms, the nitwit who committed Sandy Hook could have stacked the same bodies using an 1897 pump shotgun or a satchel of Molotov cocktails. The scary gun phobes fail to understand that the lunatics spend months planning, financing and diagramming their madness. They will get weapons regardless.
Grifhunter — Your conjectural counterfactuals are noted. Experience shows they make no sense. Semi-autos are what happens, frequently. Other stuff, previously, did not much happen. If the pedant in you suddenly feels an urge to point out some example to the contrary, don't waste your time. Anyone can see the present situation is different.
I've been there enough to know that it's called "Times Square".
You know, the way it's spelled in the law that's being quoted here?
The new law means only Cops and Robbers New York will have guns in Times Square.
Do you think context matters for civil rights laws? Gay marriage? Free speech? Freedom of religion? The right against self incrimination? The 13th Amendment?
SCOTUS has ruled. The 2nd Amendment is not a second class right anymore.
Harvey Moseley — The 2A is what the Court says it is today. If the Court changes, the 2A will be what that Court says it is then. We learned that with Heller.
Expect that custom to continue, unless people who want guns and people who want to regulate guns find some middle ground they can agree upon. Right now, the want-guns folks are feeling triumphalist. They are in no mood to consider that a pendulum ride swings both ways.
Bruen is overreach. Bruen plus Dobbs plus the West Virginia case is overreach on stilts. Some argue that makes the Court illegitimate. I suggest that the Court does not become illegitimate until the governors, the state legislatures, the congress and the president decide to defy the Court. Stay tuned.
WTF are you blabbering about? How exactly is Bruen overreach? What has the "regulate guns" crowd ever done to compromise? What good faith have they shown since 1934?
Alternate interpretation:. Bruen, Dobbs, and West Virginia are all in response to overreach.
Want to overturn them? Legislators are free to vote.
"Bruen is overreach."
I'd be willing to bet the same claim was made for Brown v. Board.
Isn't such defiance the kind of anti-democratic insurrection you've condemned Trump and followers for carrying out. Tsk Tsk, the hypocrisy.
No, it isn't. And I explained that in the comment.
A federal Judge needs to rip this law to shreds and declare that New Yorkers can constitutional carry NY passes a law that conforms to the SCOTUS ruling.
Perhaps a judge will invalidate this law. But we first need one or more plaintiffs and an evidentiary record.
Exactly, that is how the system is supposed to work.
After California passes their enhanced (Hold my beer!) version of this maybe we can get Judge Benitez to issue a nationwide injunction striking these laws down.
I don't see how "good moral character" can be documented objectively enough to pass muster. The interview smacks of bias, corruption, and may-issue, and I doubt it will pass muster either. The references, names and contact info for everybody he knows except his dog, nope, that won't fly either. Social media accounts, way too snoopy and subjective, that will fail too. These all smack of subjective excuses to deny as many permits as possible, and I fully expect them to be struck down. If the justices are so annoyed at such blatant nose-thumbing, can they strike the law in its entirety, leaving New York as a Constitutional Carry state, same way Illinois played chicken and lost?
New York was explicitly warned to keep their sensitive places to a minimum. They don't get to work around "the entire island" just by designating all the parts of it individually.
I don't think they've thought this through very carefully.
There has not been this much resistance to a Suprene Court ruling since Brown v. Board of Education
Maybe we can get the National Guard to accompany permit applicants to the licensing office.
Sounds great to me, especially, the requirement to safely store your gun, unloaded, if you leave it in your car.
Do we all remember the Kate Steinle case, which FOX news used again and again for immigrant-bashing? Well, the fact is, even if we had had no immigrants at all, Kate would have been just as much at risk of being killed by an accidental shooting as she was - getting rid of immigrants would not have protected her, BUT, if California had had a law requiring that firearms left in cars be safely stored, that WOULD have protected her.
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/travel
California already had that law, and it didn't save Kate Steinle.
So you think the Constitution is just what then, a suggestion box?
What other fundamental rights are you ok with the government deciding to willfully violate?
I am pretty sure you do not get to read the 2A as a private power of life and death over everyone anywhere. Laws to disbar that premise do not violate the right.
What the hell does this even mean?
Stephen,
It would appear that, once again, you are unaware of the facts or context of the discussion before offering your random input.
The Supreme Court literally just ruled in their opinion that permit requirements cannot be "subjective." New York is willfully violating the ruling with not only that, but other 1A-protected activities such as a right to association. They are also willfully violating the standard understanding of what constitutes a 'sensitive place,' about which they were also forewarned not to do.
They will quickly find themselves back in State and Federal Courts wasting yet more taxpayer money defending a law in which they knowingly, deliberately put prima facie unconstitutional terms.
Thank you for your meaningless drivel.
Cavanaugh, you are talking about a state governor and state legislature convinced that their own constituents regard Bruen as illegitimate. Likewise the majority which issued it. Why would they worry about being sued again, if all they have to do is defy the court again? Do you think the Biden administration will federalize the national guard to depose New York's state government?
You're being as loony as Dr. Ed and his trucker strike thing. New York may keep trying to pass laws to limit the RKBA. But it is not going to defy a federal court order, and, yes, if by some craziness it did, the Biden administration would indeed enforce that order by force. Just like Eisenhower did. Because the evil of allowing a state to do that is greater than any substantive policy issue.
Nieporent — That evil you mention? It has already been done by unprincipled arguments from the Court. Arguably, defiance in jurisdictions where the populace regards the Court's work as illegitimate can do no further harm.
So long as that defiance takes the relatively benign form of law-making and law enforcement contrary to the Court's edict, and asserts not much beyond the status-quo-ante, there is really nothing left to lose. The Court itself has intolerably undermined the rule of law.
The difference with the Eisenhower case, of course, is that Eisenhower confronted vicious defiance which sought to overturn the rule of law. By contrast, Bruen's reasoning encourages vicious defiance, under color of law. Indeed, Bruen would have conferred both actual resistance power, and moral authority on the mobs Eisenhower sent troops to suppress.
You cannot reasonably ignore that difference. Biden will not be sending troops to New York State to empower gun nuts as they seek to vindicate a triumph handed them by an outcome-oriented, lawless Court, acting in disregard of history, precedent, and the plain words of the Constitution. Trump would do that. Maybe President De Santis would do that. Not Biden. If it does come to pass that some right-wing president decides to suppress blue state resistance by force, look for much worse trouble to follow.
I get that Southern culture defiantly supported racism and segregation as a way of life. Its worst elements called Brown tyrannical. I do not think many in the South thought Brown was actually illegitimate. If that seems paradoxical to you, read Faulkner. Or just look at what followed after Eisenhower and Kennedy stepped in.
The Alito/Thomas court is on course to do something which has never previously happened—to support from the politically unaccountable Supreme Court bench a brute lunge for minority partisan power. That is an actual threat to overturn American constitutionalism permanently. That will become yet clearer in the months to come.
Expect resistance and defiance. The blue states see themselves accurately as defenders of the institutional values you yourself espouse. If you had power to convince them otherwise, it would be unwise to do it.
For some reason, you believe that you need to type out multiple paragraphs. We get it Stephen: you don't know what you're talking about, and you're just as batshit crazy as the Bellemore's.
Just once, it would be nice if you actually weren't ignorant of the topic, or the law, or anything tangentially related to what you think you're trying to argue.
Want to try substantive critique, Cavanaugh? Tell me what I wrote that seems ignorant to you, about the topic, the law, or something tangential.
Democrats have not been this furious since Lincoln freed their slaves.
Jim Crow was Dems resisting the court. It’s a habit.
Do you deserve constructive criticism? Will it change anything you ever write? No.
You don't understand why Bruen was even ruled the way it was. You don't understand the actual change it implements or the magnitude of such.
You're the mutant offspring of Brett Bellemore and Josh Blackman. You confidently believe you know what you're talking about, you dismiss anything suggesting you're wrong, and you write multiple paragraphs of drivel while communicating nothing more than the fact that you're ignorant of fundamental facts almost every single time you post.
Got it Cavanaugh. You dislike multiple paragraphs. Except for that, you've got nothing. You know why I write multiple paragraphs? Because by being careful about the limits of my arguments, I hope to forestall mindless, miss-the-point habitual responses. Sometimes that leaves less-thoughtful would-be critics spluttering and at a loss for anything substantive to say. Like you are now.
Evidently you’re not just ignorant of the facts, laws, and actual consequences- you’re also incapable of reading.
Do you now see why I said you weren’t worth it?
Typical hoplophobic dishonesty. California has such a law. Unfortunately like all of California's gun laws it doesn't apply to cops. If it did they wouldn't be prosecuted. And the gun that supposedly used a poor, illegal immigrant as a means to murder Steinle was a federal LEO's gun.
"Hoplophobic." Every time you type that, you probably have to override a prompt trying to tell you your computer does not think it is a word. It is, however, an infallible tell for gun pedantry—a special way of relating to gun culture which betrays a gun fan whose enthusiasms crowd out practical experience.
Predictable.
However, by importing the first amendment prior restraint law into Bruen, the Supreme Court blessed defiance.
Excellent common sense regulations.
I would like to see just one amendment; make it apply to all of the bill of rights (hereinafter referred to as the bill of permissions)
Scared that you won't be able to carry in NYC? Then stay home in Texas where you fit right in. Besides, it's Herald Square, not Herald's Square. I guess you really can't go home again.
NY Democrats are the most pro-criminal bunch I have ever seen. Actual criminals are not prosecuted. They get out of jail free. Then they defund the police. But if law abiding people want to protect themselves, heavens no.
Why did that logic not apply to gay couples who wanted to get married in Texas? Why is your fantasy right to shoot off in your husband inviolate, while explicit enumerated rights can be infringed at will?
Are you an inarticulate, under-achieving fifth-grader? Because you sure write like one.
Stop beating around the bush. Male on male marriages are ultimately about approval of sodomy. There's no way to sugar coat it.
Sounds like you're a bit fixated on male sex organs. You might want to speak to a therapist about your repressed homosexuality.
Do you offer the same advice to those seeking abortions in Texas? If you don't like it move to California?
Harvey Mosley — Seems to be the only good advice available. Blame that on the Court. If you do not like getting similar advice about guns, blame that on the Court too.
What will it take to make gun advocates thoughtful?
Will the "sensitive places" restrictions apply, and be enforced equally, against those who were able to obtain a carry permit in New York before Bruen—i.e., judges, the politically connected, etc.? If not, if there is a select class of permit holders who may carry everywhere based on "justifiable need" or some such criterion, should this be grounds for invalidating all of these restrictions?
I think that would be highly suspect. Which means that there are going to be very few places in Manhattan where anyone, except LEOs, will be able to carry. And security with diplomatic immunity nitty. That includes the armed security for the rich and powerful.
(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest OR assemble
Looks like any assembly of two or more people is a "sensitive place".
No more gun club meetings or matches.
Dobbs court: 'Let the states decide'
Ain't that a bitch
You're an idiot.
You guys must be cranky and hungover from last night's boozy cat fight in the other threads. Give yourselves a few hours to equilibrate then maybe you can answer more cogently.
No, you're just an idiot. States are not allowed to "decide" to violate the Constitution.
I've been watching you lose your intellectual cool more and more over the past month, Michael. Now you're as likely to be crass as you are to be honest. I don't see why. You've gotten everything on your list the past month
Your antagonism towards the rights of yourself and your fellow citizens is noted.
It’s not a good look, and you aren’t as witty as you believe.
You left off the "If it isn't in the Constitution, " part before the Dobbs paraphrase.
This is a level of dishonesty that really makes one wonder who you think you are fooling. You obviously aren't trying to make a sound argument in favor of your position. You aren't presenting a counterargument to either Dobbs or Bruen. You aren't describing the situation or highlighting potential issues.
You do realize that Reason does not have a 'like' button, right? Your blue-checked Twitteratti aren't going to be able to fluff you here.
I ain't gonna make my comments any longer to flesh out my philosophy to you toranth. Nor add implied words so I won't be called dishonest
So you'll just lie about Dobbs instead?
Your paraphrase - the heart and only substance of your comment - is false.
If you can't be bothered to expand beyond Twitter lying to make even a bad argument, then you're not even managing Behar or Drackman levels of posting.
The point is that in a sea of victories there's this one resistance in NY, and I can see all of you are irked about it.
The problem you should be having is with the conservative justices on the court except for Thomas. After inserting the knife in Dobbs and Maine and Bruen etc. the rest of the justices went to great lengths to soothe the victims by outlining the brightline limits of their rulings and how states could avoid any havoc from the decision. They didn't need to do that. They have absolute power now.
So NY took all their points and made a new law out of it. And ain't that a bitch
Your understanding of recent events is disturbingly inaccurate.
You don't see the verbatim in the NY law from the SCOTUS ruling?
I mean, exactly the opposite. SCOTUS said that NY couldn't declare Manhattan a sensitive area; NY just declared Manhattan a sensitive area.
Based on comment history, my understand of the Bruen decision is accurate, and yours is completely fucking backwards.
So yes, I did see the 'verbatim' in the decision. The difference is that I actually understood it.
This gun law is, like SB 8, a too clever by half attempt to end run around a high court decision. But I expect some people will feel rather differently about the two laws.
Mind you, the whole "resist" thing seems to be what legislatures do these days. Lots of abortion laws passed by states were clearly unconstitutional under existing precedent until last week. I guess if you say that states need to just keep trying until they get the results they want, and there is no actual penalty (other than litigation costs) for the attempts, why not? New York has achieved its policy end (basically no legal guns in public) until a court rightly strikes this down as too broad under Bruen. At which point I imagine they will rinse and repeat with a slightly narrower law. I don't personally actually like or care about guns (though I think carrying/owning them is a right). But I don't think the approach here is good for rule of law. But then I felt the same for all the abortion restricting laws.
The solution is that if a judge issues an injunction against a law, no similar law should be allowed to take effect until the judge approves it.
No the solution should have been when legislatures passed laws obviously violating Roe, the courts should have slapped them down. Instead the federal court system allowed a situation where abortion was functionally illegal in many places years before last weeks SC decision. It is not surprising that blue legislatures are using the same tricks. Law systems rapidly break down when people can easily game them.
I think it is a bad spiral, and nobody wants to unilaterally disarm. Kind of like the eating away of the filibuster.
I also think some of the bad laws aren't even seriously meant. They know they will be stayed/struck down, they are more just like campaign statements. Which I dislike when they are so obviously unconstitutional (where constitutional==what the current court believes).
As usual with any of these ridiculous restrictions, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Currentsitguy — Which is why smart states which want to keep control of guns will enforce their laws by confiscating the guns of people who break the laws. Then most gun advocates who nod sagely over that stupid aphorism will be doing their nodding in a different jurisdiction. Give that some thought. Make it a point to notice that it advantages both sides of the debate.
Hopefully those people who break the laws will go down fighting and kill some LEOs in the process. Make the prospect of tyranny painful, and government agents are less likely to go along.
There is a saying in the gun community. Concealed means concealed. It is not inconceivable that a person could carry concealed for years and never be discovered by law enforcement unless or until that gun is used to defend their life. If the alternative to prison was death many would consider that a good trade. Of course criminals do this as well if they feel a need to be armed. There is not a law that will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. Of course, the law abiding citizen who only commits a crime by violating CCW laws is a criminal, too. Another malum prohibitum crime to show people their place.
Mosley, how are you going to have a CCW credentialing program—authorized even under Bruen—which a cop doing a traffic stop cannot discover? Do you think it would pass muster for Texas to say, sure, we get to check whether you have a permit to carry, but cops out of state don't?
I live in a shall issue state. Got pulled over once. The officer asked if I had any firearms. I said, “Yes, but they are all in the trunk.” He left it there, didn’t even ask to see my permit.
AAA, for all you know, he had already checked it out, before he even pulled you over.
Suppose New York State does pass massively specific gun carry controls, in defiance of Bruen. Would you drive to New York with a trunk full of guns?
People who possess and carry a firearm concealed without a license are breaking only a few more laws than would be those licensed to do so that foolishly attempt to do more than bear their pistol from their bedroom to their kitchen.
So SCOTUS will see New York in court again.
Well, perhaps. A lower court may well stay this or strike it down, as it is way over the top in going against Bruen.
One thing the anti-gun people won't do is to start a serious effort to repeal the 2nd amendment. Is that because it's difficult, or because the public would not support it?
Most absurd is to have a right, then to do everything possible to prevent people from exercising that right.
Truly anti-gun people do want to repeal the 2A. But there are plenty that just want to draw the line in a different place than where it is.
Eugene Volokh has been serializing a relevant law review article on that topic. Maybe you'd like to show that you read some of those posts.
That's a policy argument.
AT made a motivation argument. And that one is wrong.
No, you conceded his argument was right. You just cited a different group as a distraction.
If you want to play it like that, then you concede the number of anti-gun people is quite small.
New York's new law is an effective repeal, and you know it.
I don't know or care about the policy in the OP, which is why I didn't post about it.
I also don't really engage much with huge racists, so you're going back on mute.
I don’t have any social media accounts. Does that automatically raise a red flag about my moral fitness and make me ineligible for a gun permit? Or do they presume I am not being honest and refuse to issue?
Nor do I. I think it makes us suspiciously anti-social.
Welcome to the club New York.
Illinois (Chicago) also demanded 16 hours of training, plus a range qualification test (7 out of 10 rounds "Center Mass" on an FBI profile target at 5, 7 and 10 yards).
Not because it will create better, safer gun owners. But because the cost of that much training, coupled with a city with not a single gun store or shooting range, creates a barrier to entry for the many in the under served communities.
The Cook County Sheriff also lobbied heavily for a "May Issue" system, recognizing the campaign contributions it always "coincidentally" brings. He even threatened to quash any and all applications from Cook County that he didn't approve.
In spite of their best efforts to slow or choke the demand, we now have 300,000+ licensed Concealed Carriers today and it's growing quickly. Not surprisingly, with a shortage of 2,000 Chicago Police and Jussie Smollet's best buddy Kim Foxx as an ineffective DA, Minorities and women are the fastest growing segments of carriers here.
There certainly is "blood in the streets", but it's not from anyone with a Carry Permit or even the required Firearm Owners ID (FOID) Card.
Not sure when the new NY gun law just signed by NY's latest accidental governor goes into effect, but who will be the first to challenge it; a new applicant or someone with an existing permit who will now face expanded restrictions on where they can legally carry?
Hochul is demonstrating why female Irish Catholics don't belong in any position of power
Okay, that's it. Back on mute you go.
Things are run a lot better when white Protestant men are in charge.
Are you sure they were ever really in charge? I mean, (((you know who))) always truly controlled things, right?
I wholeheartedly agree.
It seems fairly clear to me that New York's immediate past Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and the first selection for Lieutenant Governor by its present Governor, Kathy Hoculi, should (but dare I say will) be disqualified from obtaining a concealed carry permit because of their lack of good character. And does associating with persons who are not of good character disqualify Governor Hoculi herself?
My god, why don't these morons look around and realize plenty of states let anybody concealed carry any time they want to and it's FINE. Jeez.
They know that. They. Don't. Care.
It's not about the welfare of the citizenry, it's about their despising the idea that the peons are allowed to be armed.
Do you have evidence that NY gun laws are generally unpopular in the state?
My impression is that our laws, here in MA, are quite popular.
I'm impressed by NY. SCOTUS says administrators do not have the discretion to determine "good cause." So instead they give them the discretion to determine "good moral character."
Totally different.
The best suggestion I have ever heard is that voter registration should be valid for a concealed carry permit.
Then the left and right can agree on uniform standards.
Under this idiotic scheme, one who goes out in public to exercise his 1st Amendment rights must simultaneously surrender his 2nd Amendment rights. If the 2nd Amendment right is not a second-class right, if it is equal to the other individual rights, then elements of this legislation are wholly unconstitutional.