VetteGirlMA
NES Member
It was voted down by the city primarily because it was so outrageous it would never stand.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
It was voted down by the city primarily because it was so outrageous it would never stand.
I think I want to light up the phone lines asking how I can get me one of them juicy new NYC permits.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,974
- Likes
- 36,468
Don't be surprised of Comm2a starts asking for donations.....
As a Medford restricted LTC holder, I want to call the Medford line and ask when I can expect to get my updated license printed sans restrictions
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,253
- Likes
- 27,611
Don't be surprised if they start showing up before you make the request.
You haven’t yet?
C’mon you know me better by now, lol, did you really take that as a serious post? Just my dry humor.
Dadstoys
NES Member
It is a good thing , a very good thing.
Some folks were expecting it was going to go far beyond the case at hand.
How Should Courts Evaluate Gun Regulations After Bruen?
There's much to be said and debated about the N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen opinions, and who got it right. But for now, I want to turn to
reason.com
Hunting out of season. They are considered furr bearers and there is a season for them.......which is currently closed.
Weekly range qualifications, fees fees fees, need to hit a bullseye 11 times out of 10...
Yup
Dadstoys
NES Member
That's what we should be hearing from the NRA too!!
You should have been at the desk at lunchtime. Why would you not start demanding it ASAP?
we had coyotes in our little patch of the forest path, i actually called police dept about it - they said, do not shoot it if it is beyond 50ft from you. if it closes on you - you can shoot it.
town is a regular do not discharge zone, forest is in town, but i guess if you are attacked by a rabid yote - you can and should defend yourself.
Where is the “shut up and take my money” button?
so, does it mean NYC will ignore SCOTUS and will keep all regulations as is? i did not listen to the end, but got that impression somehow.
awesomesauce. it is getting juicier and juicier every day.
Democrats BIG MAD.
Get f***ed liberal pukes.
Get f***ed liberal pukes.
GaryO
NES Member
Just bought some stuff on Amazon smile and a piece goes to Comm2A
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
Strike while the iron is hot.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
He forgot to tell you only snap cap practice ammo is allowed in the firearm.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
He only said that because they are waiting to see what the lower court says.
How much time did the jurisdictions which did not allow gay marriage have to implement the SCOTUS ruling allowing gay marriage? Just askin.
Lol that would get slapped down in court so fast their heads would spin.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
Can we give a round of applause to Clarence "One Step Too Many" Thomas please?
No. It's them being surly and mealy-mouthed, acting like sore losers. They're technically right: SCOTUS booted this back to the lower court, which now has to change its ruling. But it hasn't done that yet.
They'll comply in NYC. They'll do a bad job of it, but they'll comply.
El_Guapo77
NES Member
Attachments
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
I guess these faggots didn't read the decision:
Council Speaker Adrienne Adams said she’d sponsor a resolution calling for the state to “to designate U.S. Census-defined highest population density areas of public roadways, streets, sidewalks, and pathways where there are 10,000 or more people within one square mile as “sensitive locations.”
Council Speaker Adrienne Adams said she’d sponsor a resolution calling for the state to “to designate U.S. Census-defined highest population density areas of public roadways, streets, sidewalks, and pathways where there are 10,000 or more people within one square mile as “sensitive locations.”
ToddDubya
NES Member
Did you say GLOCKS!!!!1!!?
ToddDubya
NES Member
Comm2A, put this on a shirt. Size L.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
Hot off the presses guntards:
Supreme Court decision on New York gun law could affect Massachusetts gun policies
FILE - A handgun from a collection of illegal guns is reviewed during a gun buyback event in Brooklyn, N.Y., May 22, 2021. AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews, FIle
By The Associated Press, Associated Press
June 23, 2022 | 5:14 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law that had restricted who could obtain a permit to carry a gun in public. Under the law in place since 1913, New York residents needed to show proper cause, or an actual need, to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense.
The justices said that law conflicts with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. It drew swift reaction from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who called the decision reckless and said she was prepared to call the Legislature back into session to form a response.
ADVERTISEMENT:
“We do not need people entering our subways, our restaurants and movie theaters with concealed weapons,” she said. “We don’t need more guns on our streets.”
New York and a half a dozen other states with similar laws now must decide their next steps. As with New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have legislatures controlled by Democrats who could propose measures to ensure that guns will not be allowed in certain places.
Gun rights groups in those states have vowed to continue pushing back against what they view as restrictive gun control laws. Some of those cases eventually could make their way to the nation’s high court.
Massachusetts’ law had given local police chiefs the power to decide whether someone is suitable to have a license to carry a handgun. Police chiefs have been able to deny applicants if they determine that the person would pose a risk to public safety, for reasons such as a history of domestic violence. Those who are denied can appeal to their local district court.
The law says those deemed suitable can get a license to carry if they show “good reason to fear injury” to themselves or their property “or for any other reason,” including “for use in sport or target practice only.”
ADVERTISEMENT:
What’s considered a “good reason” has been up to police chiefs, who vary in what they require of applicants to meet that standard. Some demand that applicants show they have a reason to fear injury that distinguishes them from the general population in order to get an unrestricted license.
Massachusetts courts have ruled that if someone can’t show a “good reason to fear injury,” police chiefs can put restrictions on licenses that limit when someone can carry a firearm.
State Attorney General Maura Healey said Thursday that she stands by the state’s “commonsense gun laws and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce them.” The office has not responded to questions from The Associated Press about to what extent Massachusetts’ law will be affected by the ruling.
Jason Guida, former director of the Massachusetts Firearms Records Bureau who now works as a lawyer representing gun owners, said state laws restricting the carry of guns outside the home will now be challenged and likely overturned.
Communities that restrict gun owners’ licenses for certain purposes unless applicants show a special need for self-defense will need to rewrite their policies, “otherwise there’s a strong likelihood in the very near future that these communities will find themselves in federal court,” he said.
Supreme Court decision on New York gun law could affect Massachusetts gun policies
By The Associated Press, Associated Press
June 23, 2022 | 5:14 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law that had restricted who could obtain a permit to carry a gun in public. Under the law in place since 1913, New York residents needed to show proper cause, or an actual need, to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense.
The justices said that law conflicts with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. It drew swift reaction from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who called the decision reckless and said she was prepared to call the Legislature back into session to form a response.
ADVERTISEMENT:
“We do not need people entering our subways, our restaurants and movie theaters with concealed weapons,” she said. “We don’t need more guns on our streets.”
New York and a half a dozen other states with similar laws now must decide their next steps. As with New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have legislatures controlled by Democrats who could propose measures to ensure that guns will not be allowed in certain places.
Gun rights groups in those states have vowed to continue pushing back against what they view as restrictive gun control laws. Some of those cases eventually could make their way to the nation’s high court.
Massachusetts’ law had given local police chiefs the power to decide whether someone is suitable to have a license to carry a handgun. Police chiefs have been able to deny applicants if they determine that the person would pose a risk to public safety, for reasons such as a history of domestic violence. Those who are denied can appeal to their local district court.
The law says those deemed suitable can get a license to carry if they show “good reason to fear injury” to themselves or their property “or for any other reason,” including “for use in sport or target practice only.”
ADVERTISEMENT:
What’s considered a “good reason” has been up to police chiefs, who vary in what they require of applicants to meet that standard. Some demand that applicants show they have a reason to fear injury that distinguishes them from the general population in order to get an unrestricted license.
Massachusetts courts have ruled that if someone can’t show a “good reason to fear injury,” police chiefs can put restrictions on licenses that limit when someone can carry a firearm.
State Attorney General Maura Healey said Thursday that she stands by the state’s “commonsense gun laws and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce them.” The office has not responded to questions from The Associated Press about to what extent Massachusetts’ law will be affected by the ruling.
Jason Guida, former director of the Massachusetts Firearms Records Bureau who now works as a lawyer representing gun owners, said state laws restricting the carry of guns outside the home will now be challenged and likely overturned.
Communities that restrict gun owners’ licenses for certain purposes unless applicants show a special need for self-defense will need to rewrite their policies, “otherwise there’s a strong likelihood in the very near future that these communities will find themselves in federal court,” he said.
Last edited:
Similar threads
