Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hochul calling New York lawmakers back to Albany next week to address SCOTUS concealed carry ruling
NY Daily News ^ | 6/24/22 | Denis Slattery

Posted on 06/25/2022 4:05:03 AM PDT by Libloather

ALBANY - State lawmakers will return to work next week to address the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down a New York law limiting the carrying of concealed firearms, Gov. Hochul announced Friday.

The governor signed an order mandating a special legislative session in response to the court’s 6-3 decision doing away with the century-old statute.

“The Supreme Court’s reckless and reprehensible decision to strike down New York’s century-old concealed carry law puts lives at risk here in New York,” Hochul said in a statement. “My number one priority as governor will always be to keep New Yorkers safe.”

The Supreme Court ruled that requiring residents seeking a license to carry a gun outside the home to demonstrate a “proper cause” was unconstitutional.

New York’s strict concealed-carry law has been on the books since 1913. Essentially, for a gun owner to carry a concealed handgun in public they had to demonstrate a specific need for self-defense when applying for a license.

The governor and legislative leaders have been “working around the clock” since the decision came down to craft new legislation in response, according to Hochul.

On Thursday, the governor said that the state may require applicants undergo firearms training to obtain a concealed-carry permit and New York may try to ban guns at “sensitive” locations such schools, churches and even the subway.

Additionally on Friday, the governor said she is looking at legislation that would prohibit New Yorkers from carrying weapons in businesses unless an establishment proactively allows it.

(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Health/Medicine; Local News
KEYWORDS: carry; hochul; ny; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: Cboldt

Hopefully for ny’ers, like post 13 states, she won’t be able to just declare every place a “sensitive place” because thst would put an undue burden, and unconstitutional burden on people for defending themselves in public. Folks,have an inalienable right to defend themselves in public, and declaring everything a gun free zone isn’t reasonable.


21 posted on 06/25/2022 7:02:53 AM PDT by Bob434 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

She’ll purposely cross the line into unconsitutional territory, as many ways as she can figure. Each one will be litigated separately. That dance can go on for generations.

The NY law recenty struck down has been in effect for over 100 years.


22 posted on 06/25/2022 7:05:00 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Yep. If the ,eft can’t have their way, they make it miserable for everyone for as long as they can. They are very vengeful people. Their attacks on Trump and everyoen associated with him stem from their vengeful agenda for,when the Republicans impeached Clinton, tried to dethrone Obama over birth certificate, and for denying Hillary her “rightful place as president” in their minds. Thry never forget or relent. Folks,in ny are going to have to face their wrath over this latest ruling by the sc, and also for the abortion ruling too.


23 posted on 06/25/2022 7:22:43 AM PDT by Bob434 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

If separate plaintiffs bring civil actions based on the state’s depravation of their civil rights, it will get very expensive for NY very quickly.


24 posted on 06/25/2022 7:44:19 AM PDT by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV
-- If separate plaintiffs bring civil actions based on the state's depravation of their civil rights, it will get very expensive for NY very quickly. --

I submit that is a price the state is willing to subject the taxpayers to.

The threshold for winning a 1983 action is mightly high.

25 posted on 06/25/2022 8:00:38 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The threshold for winning a 1983 action is mightly high.

The public statements of Hochul and Adams, among others, are going to effectively reverse the burden on that point.

26 posted on 06/25/2022 8:08:03 AM PDT by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV

Come to think of it, I know of no 1983 action success when the state applied its law. The remedy is striking the law.

Nobody affected by the 100+ year old law just struck down has a cause of action. Entire lifetimes, deprived of a fundamental right and the sole remedy is law struck down,


27 posted on 06/25/2022 8:11:53 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The cause of action under 42 U.C.C. 1983 is against the person who deprived the plaintiff of a civil right by “under color of authority” by enforcing an unconstitutional law. Injunctive relief coupled with attorney’s fees, typically astronomical, is the remedy. True, the state of NY has immunity, but its cities and counties do not, but the failure to issue a permit will occur at that level anyway.


28 posted on 06/25/2022 8:28:07 AM PDT by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV

Sorry U.C.C. = U.S.C.


29 posted on 06/25/2022 8:28:50 AM PDT by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

https://mobile.twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1540174436346671106


30 posted on 06/25/2022 8:30:26 AM PDT by BookmanTheJanitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV

Just a couple points ... I assume enforcement will be by the book, not “under color of law.”

I doubt there will be substantial failure to issue permits, just the usual delay as regulations are updated to accomodate the recent ruling.

Maybe you are right. Maybe the courts will be hostile to the state and favorable to the public. It would be a welcome and radical switch.


31 posted on 06/25/2022 8:32:42 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

My state is already “shall issue” so I’m just a spectator, but this is going to be very interesting to watch. One irony is that decades of Sec. 1983 case law based on deprivation of rights by civil authorities and related to race, will now be necessarily applied to our rights under the 2nd amendment.


32 posted on 06/25/2022 8:42:11 AM PDT by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I’m sure that Hochul and NY lawmakers are already well protected by gun-carrying security forces.


33 posted on 06/25/2022 8:47:32 AM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

How’d that gun free zone grocery store work out for the victims?


34 posted on 06/25/2022 8:51:25 AM PDT by Organic Panic (Democrats. Memories as short as Joe Biden's eyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I have MA nonresident CCW, you do have to take an NRA (or other) course to get it.


35 posted on 06/25/2022 8:54:11 AM PDT by Jim Noble (I’ve stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

I live in VA and I had to take a 3hr safety course at my local gun club. It was actually pretty interesting to hear some of my classmate’s experiences. One poor fellow had just bought a new 9mm pistol along with some Glasser Safety Plugs and he playing with it while watching TV. As always, the story began with “’I thought it was unloaded”, but while clicking it the gun went off pointed at his foot. At first there was no pain and he thought “I’m so lucky, how could I have missed my foot. Then, he saw blood pouring out of his shoe. He said he went through countless surgeries, but he still had the foot whenI saw him.


36 posted on 06/25/2022 9:17:59 AM PDT by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Anne McCloy
@AnneMcCloyNews

Anne: Do you have numbers to show that it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes?

Hochul: I don’t need to have numbers. I don’t need to have a data point to say this. I know that I have a responsibility for this state to have sensible gun safety laws.
7:16 PM · Jun 29, 2022


37 posted on 06/30/2022 7:19:06 AM PDT by mewzilla (We need to repeal RCV wherever it's in use and go back to dumb voting machines.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson