[Red Steel]

New York can require applicants for concealed-carry gun license to articulate a need for self-protection distinguishable

The NY applicants says on applications that unknown assailant(s) have made attempts to mug and put selves in jeopardy. NY is now in the negative position to prove applicants are wrong.

Better: NY passes a law that says shall issue.

[PistolPaknMama]

But the thrilled-bent youngsters, age 18 to 21, are old enough to go to war WITH GUNS. Kids...we’re talking about kids, right?

[Sgt_Schultze]

Now that we have states which will be legally sanctioning gay marriages, those unions will have to be respected even in states which do not administer homo unions. Once that is inevitably litigated, there is really no reason a licensed right-to-carry citizen of, say Texas, shouldn’t move to New York and demand similar reciprocity.

[DTogo]

“The present ban appears consistent with a longstanding tradition of age- and safety-based restrictions on the ability to access arms,” said the court. Thus Congress has and can restrict the ability of minors under 21, who are “relatively immature,” to purchase guns without the Second Amendment even kicking in.

The criminal defense attorney of any "relatively immature" individual between 18 and 21 should use this case to argue his/her client cannot be tried as an adult.

You're either an adult with all the Rights and responsibilities that come with it under the Constitution, or you are a juvenile. IMHO (not a lawyer nor play one on TV).

[Chode]

it says can not WILL require!!! it's still up to the judge

our local judge is an NRA Life Member and still issues CW permits

[ThunderSleeps]

The court is just wrong. I'm not even a lawyer and I can see this. I'm embarrassed for the judge that handed down this ruling - like showing up to a packed court naked. Your foolishness is on display for everyone to see.

What part of fundamental, inalienable right do they not get? The right to defend ones self is perhaps the most basic one there is - it allows us to (try to) ensure our continued existence. The right to keep and bear arms as a means of doing that is so fundamental the Founding Fathers of our Country enshrined it in the 2nd Amendment. Ok, not the first thing, but the second out of ten. What they recognized is that the right to self defense is inalienable, and firearms are so important to this that they wanted a guarantee that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government.

That is a subtle but important distinction that would-be gun grabbers gloss over. The 2nd Amendment does not give nor grant us any rights. What is given/granted can be taken away. What the 2nd Amendment states is that the government shall not infringe on that fundamental right.

Consider the 1st Amendment, loved, used, and abused by so-called artists to shock and offend. (personally I think when you have to go for shock value, your "art" has no other intrinsic value and you're a poor excuse for an artist) But consider if the 1st Amendment was attacked by the courts and would-be "speech-grabbers" like the 2nd Amendment is:

• I'm sorry, you need a class 1 license for an email account, a class 2 license for facebook, and a class 3 federal speech license to run your own blog.
• You can carry that diary/journal openly, but you're going to get a lot of attention. If you want to conceal it in a backpack you're going to have to get a permit for it.
• You can't talk in public to strangers when intoxicated. (that one might actually be a good idea)
• By ordinance, no talking in public within the city limits.
• Illiteracy now! People don't spread bad ideas, books do!
• Look, you don't need "cop-killer" words, no one needs words over three syllables.
• All your sentences have to be limited to low capacity. No more than 10 words each. No conjunctions.
• No whispering. Speech "suppressors" are dangerous, you can hide illicit speech that way.
• No hate words, no "assault speech." (actually political correctness comes pretty close to this now)
• Sorry, there is a three day waiting period to be licensed to use that adverb.

Ridiculous right? And don't even get me started on religion side of the 1st Amendment. So why is it that people acquiesce to these attacks on the 2nd Amendment? I guarantee you that without the 2nd Amendment, we would not have the others either for very long.

[Gene Eric]

>> Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn ...

Imagine that. Militant gun advocates can actually learn.

What a jackass.

[CottShop]

well now here’s an unbiased report- “Militant gun advocates”? lol

[[Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn that there are indeed limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that there is no fundamental right to carry handguns in public.]]

Really, and just where are those limits again? No fundamental right to carry in public? Really,? And where is the prohibition against carrying in public again? Oh that’s right, there is NONE!

[CottShop]

[[New York can require applicants for concealed-carry gun license to articulate a need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,]]

Hmmmm- “Your honor, I beleive that beign shot at 10 times i nthe last month makes me more eligible than someone who’s only been shot at 7 times- I beleive that witnessign 15 muggings in my neighborhood makes me more eiligible than someone hwo has only witnessed 14”

Cripes- EVERYONE has a RIGHT to protect themselves agaisnt deadly force by usign deadly force- and everyoen has a RIGHT to carry preventative measures to ensure that we remain protected agaisnt ANY potential future threat- Militant anti-gun advocates MUST prove that ordinary citizens do not have a right to self protection- and so far they can NOT prove that- all they can do is claim that all we have to do is call a policeman and that police are the only folks allowed to carry guns-

Thios needs to be settled in the supreme court once and for all- do we have a right to defend ourselves agaisnt terror and threat to our lives or not?

[TigersEye]

He’s not as smart as his brother Jethro.

[SECURE AMERICA]

Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn that there are indeed limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that there is no fundamental right to carry handguns in public

Not nearly as surpirsied as the men that wrote the Constituion would be!

[Alaska Wolf]

The U.S. government can prohibit gun dealers from selling handguns to minors, according to a Fifth Circuit ruling on October 25. See NRA vs. ATF, No. 11-10959. The NRA argued that 11,000 of its members, aged 18 to 21

Then 18 to 21 year olds should be ineligible for military service.