Posted on 11/29/2022 4:12:01 AM PST by marktwain
On September 13, 2022, Brett Christian, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and others filed suit against the “emergency” measure pushed through the New York State legislature by Governor Hochul, in defiance of the long-awaited decision in NYSR&PA v Bruen.
The Bruen decision clarified the Heller and McDonald decisions, partially restoring the right to bear arms. The right has been incrementally infringed on for more than a hundred years, primarily under the “Progressive” political philosophy, along with its ideological brethren, the “Jim Crow” laws and Black Codes.
The Christian v. Nigrelli case, as it came to be known, pointed out the Hochel “emergency” statute violated the protections of the Second Amendment when it made all private property into “sensitive places” except where the property owners made an effort to extract themselves. From the complaint:
The [Supreme] Court also explained what courts and States could not do. In Bruen, New York attempted to characterize its pre-Bruen ban of public carry as merely a “sensitive place” restriction. Id. at 2133–34. There, the State attempted to define “sensitive places” as “all places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court rejected New York’s capacious designation of sensitive places. “[E]xpanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly.” Id. (emphasis added). Under Bruen, the designation of “sensitive places” cannot be used to “in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment” or “eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.” Id. at 2134. Instead, the only permissible “sensitive places” are those with a “historical basis.” Id.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
👍
Ca has a similar law that also needs to be looked at. You are only allow to carry on private property if you are “behind a barrier”. Meaning you have to be in a building or behind a wall or fence.
Great!
They do it knowing that it will take a long,long time for the courts to overturn them...and,once overturned,they're ready with 50 *more* laws intended to deny basic rights.
“They do it knowing that it will take a long,long time for the courts to overturn them...and,once overturned,they’re ready with 50 *more* laws intended to deny basic rights.”
SCOTUS should strip these legislatures of the power to regulate firearms at all. There is precedent for this with voting rights. Jailing a few legislators and governors isn’t a bad idea either.
L
I don't need a license to attend church (or express my opinions on FR) in Florida...Massachusetts...Illinois...Nevada...Guam...or Puerto Rico.Why should I need a license to carry a firearm in any of those places. Or anywhere else in the United States?
Seems the onky right being upheld by the courts is the 2nd amendment.
New York never gets anything right, people need to change the Political Atmosphere quickly.
Couldn’t a judge deem those legal moves frivolous and dismiss the cases?
They know they’re wrong. They don’t care.
I’ve been watching old episodes of Adam-12, and it’s maddening to see how far the state has fallen. There was a scene where a neighbor called the police because a man was shooting his gun.
Malloy was explaining to him in a calm, rational voice that there was nothing wrong with having a gun or even displaying it on his own property - he just couldn’t be a nuisance by firing it so closely to other properties.
The gun, by the way, was just sitting on the outdoor table during the exchange.
“Malloy was explaining to him in a calm, rational voice that there was nothing wrong with having a gun or even displaying it on his own property - he just shouldn’t be a nuisance by firing it so closely to other properties.
The gun, by the way, was just sitting on the outdoor table during the exchange.
I actually remember that episode. And when I was growing up that is just how it was. Cops stopped us many times walking down main street with loaded rifles to go out plinking and just say “You boys be careful Ok?”. Used to take them to school to go hunting or plinking after school. No problem, no big deal.
We live in Az and recently I was standing behind a lady checking out of Walmart. she mentioned that she had recently moved there from Ca. The clerk and her were talking and firearms came up. The clerk told her that the store allowed folks to come in carrying firearms. She said “You are kidding me? Guns in the store???”.
So I interjected and said hard to tell because it is legal to carry concealed, but right now half the people in this store are carrying firearms. She turned white and I thought she was going to pass out. She could not scramble out of there fast enough. This is the level of fear mongering and brainwashing we are dealing with...
I’m glad to see the skeptics wrong who said it would take years for these post-Bruen cases to be decided. NYS needs to take the hint and stop with the legislative temper tantrums.
Sadly, I believe that getting it wrong reflects the views of a majority of their constituents. Libs would rather bend the rules to fit their opinions than conform to a Constitutional model.
The skeptics are not wrong yet.
The NY cases are being appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. They have been hostile to a vigorous Second Amendment.
The same applies the cases in California, being appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The cases in Texas being appealed to the Fifth Circuit, are different, in that the Fifth circuit has been far more friendly to the Second Amendment.
That has been the case for at least 70 years.
The country has been run by "Progressive" for at least that long.
One of the fundamental beliefs of Progressives is the Constitution is old and outdated, and has to be "worked around" or ignored.
I assume that a Federal judge could do so. But then the state just appeals the decision to the next higher court...and so on...on so on...and so on. Like I said they depend on it taking years before a final ruling is made.
I'll say it again. Thomas did a damn fine job with Bruen. Didn't go quite as far as I'd like (I'd pretty much strike the entirety of §922), but he's getting more mileage out of it than I initially thought he would.
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.