Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

chidiver said:
Illinois, when they were forced to issue their new carry law by SCOTUS
Click to expand...
Illinois, where you need to ride heavy
just to protect yourself from the transit workers.


Dennis in MA said:
You're expecting them NOT to double-down on the stupid?
Click to expand...
Phila_Carta_NJ_Map_Print_11x14_1d324f6f-e806-474a-bda9-424a5c00f147_1024x1024@2x.jpg
 
Last edited:

New York Gun Permit Bill Would Require In-Person Training and Mental Health Records Check​

In response to last week’s Supreme Court ruling, legislation negotiated by Gov. Kathy Hochul is expected to quickly become state law.​

And so it begins.

From today's WSJ.

"New York’s political leaders want to require people applying for concealed weapons permits to attend in-person training sessions and let officials access their mental health records during a background check, according to people briefed on a bill that will be presented to lawmakers Wednesday.

The bill, set to be voted on Thursday, is a response to last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down New York’s permitting scheme for concealed weapons. New York was one of a half-dozen states, including California and New Jersey, whose rules were called into question by the 6-3 ruling.

New York’s legislation would also prohibit the possession of guns in government buildings, court houses, hospitals, schools and other “places where children gather,” the people briefed on the bill said. Possession of a handgun in a private business would be banned unless the business expressly allowed people to carry.
The proposal is expected to pass both houses of New York’s Democratic-controlled legislature and quickly be signed into law by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, who negotiated the details with legislative leaders over the weekend.

The Supreme Court invalidated New York’s requirement that people demonstrate “proper cause”—held by courts to mean demonstrating “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community”—to receive a concealed carry permit. The court ruled that the permitting regime gave officials too much discretion in determining whether to grant a permit, and that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

Democratic officials in the affected states all said they would update their laws to clarify the handgun permitting process and to spell out “sensitive places” where all weapons are prohibited.

Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he planned to sign a package of 16 gun-related bills already advancing through the legislature. Several of those bills passed this week and await the Democrat’s signature, including one that would allow individuals and public prosecutors to sue gun manufacturers and sellers for harm caused by their products when they fail to follow state gun laws and another that would put further restrictions on so-called ghost guns, which people can assemble out of parts at home, without a serial number.

On Tuesday, a state senator also introduced a proposal that would tighten the state’s concealed carry regulations, including requiring applicants disclose all arrests and restraining orders as well as provide three personal references. It would also bar concealed carry from areas such as schools, medical facilities, government buildings and bars.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Friday said he would support legislation that expands the list of people and locations where carrying guns is prohibited. Talks with state lawmakers are ongoing, a spokeswoman said.

Ms. Hochul proclaimed a special session of the state Legislature for Thursday to consider new firearms regulations. She said Monday that the measure would also increase requirements for storage to receive a pistol permit and ban handguns from public transportation.

New York’s existing licensing process would be changed to require in-person training and to require applicants to sign a waiver that would let officials review an applicant’s mental-health-care records, the people briefed on the negotiations said.

The legislation’s text hasn’t been completed and some provisions could change before Thursday’s session, the people said. Democrats who control the state Assembly and Senate were scheduled to be briefed on the bill during private conferences on Wednesday, legislative officials said.

State Sen. Zellnor Myrie, a Democrat from Brooklyn who supports laws to curb gun violence, said he wanted to ensure that a new licensing process didn’t have a disparate impact on any particular group, like racial minorities.

“Some of this is us foraging into new territory, but doing so in a way that still follows the spirit of this ruling,” he said.

Republicans in the state cheered the Supreme Court ruling last week, and several said they didn’t see the need for additional legislation. Assemblyman Kieran Michael Lalor, a Republican from the Poughkeepsie area, said new requirements would simply burden law-abiding gun owners.

“The bad guys who commit these crimes do not follow the laws. They’re not going to sign a waiver. They’re not going to go to a training course before committing a murder,” he said of the new proposals."

Christine Mai-Duc and Deanna Paul contributed to this article.
 
So... pretty much MA, but "shall-issue" and with a mental health component.

One wonders what specific disqualifiers are listed for the mental health check. Because they'd need to be enumerated.
 
CA not wasting any time f***ing around

ktla.com

California moves to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed more people to carry concealed weapons, California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them, while strugglin…
ktla.com ktla.com

What I bolded......wtf does that mean?

They aim to restrict concealed carry to those 21 and older; require applicants to disclose all prior arrests, criminal convictions and restraining or protective orders; require in-person interviews with the applicant and at least three character references; and allow sheriffs and police chiefs to consider applicants’ public statements as they weigh if the individual is dangerous.
Click to expand...
 
jhblaze1 said:
CA not wasting any time f***ing around

ktla.com

California moves to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed more people to carry concealed weapons, California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them, while strugglin…
ktla.com ktla.com

What I bolded......wtf does that mean?
Click to expand...

You know what it means.

It won't fly, though, as long as it allows any level of discretion from any public official.
 
Bladerunner said:
Also, it means by exercising your 1A right to free speech, you invalidate your 2A rights.

Neat huh?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's why, when it gets smacked down, it'll get smacked down HARD. That, and because it directly violates the wording of the majority opinion.

But @FrugalFannie is correct. That'll all take a little time, and people will be in danger in the meantime. Unless they decide enough is enough, their state is acting unconstitutionally, and they can follow natural law.
 
SFC13557 said:

New York Gun Permit Bill Would Require In-Person Training and Mental Health Records Check​

In response to last week’s Supreme Court ruling, legislation negotiated by Gov. Kathy Hochul is expected to quickly become state law.​

And so it begins.

From today's WSJ.

"New York’s political leaders want to require people applying for concealed weapons permits to attend in-person training sessions and let officials access their mental health records during a background check, according to people briefed on a bill that will be presented to lawmakers Wednesday.

The bill, set to be voted on Thursday, is a response to last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down New York’s permitting scheme for concealed weapons. New York was one of a half-dozen states, including California and New Jersey, whose rules were called into question by the 6-3 ruling.

New York’s legislation would also prohibit the possession of guns in government buildings, court houses, hospitals, schools and other “places where children gather,” the people briefed on the bill said. Possession of a handgun in a private business would be banned unless the business expressly allowed people to carry.
The proposal is expected to pass both houses of New York’s Democratic-controlled legislature and quickly be signed into law by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, who negotiated the details with legislative leaders over the weekend.

The Supreme Court invalidated New York’s requirement that people demonstrate “proper cause”—held by courts to mean demonstrating “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community”—to receive a concealed carry permit. The court ruled that the permitting regime gave officials too much discretion in determining whether to grant a permit, and that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

Democratic officials in the affected states all said they would update their laws to clarify the handgun permitting process and to spell out “sensitive places” where all weapons are prohibited.

Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he planned to sign a package of 16 gun-related bills already advancing through the legislature. Several of those bills passed this week and await the Democrat’s signature, including one that would allow individuals and public prosecutors to sue gun manufacturers and sellers for harm caused by their products when they fail to follow state gun laws and another that would put further restrictions on so-called ghost guns, which people can assemble out of parts at home, without a serial number.

On Tuesday, a state senator also introduced a proposal that would tighten the state’s concealed carry regulations, including requiring applicants disclose all arrests and restraining orders as well as provide three personal references. It would also bar concealed carry from areas such as schools, medical facilities, government buildings and bars.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Friday said he would support legislation that expands the list of people and locations where carrying guns is prohibited. Talks with state lawmakers are ongoing, a spokeswoman said.

Ms. Hochul proclaimed a special session of the state Legislature for Thursday to consider new firearms regulations. She said Monday that the measure would also increase requirements for storage to receive a pistol permit and ban handguns from public transportation.

New York’s existing licensing process would be changed to require in-person training and to require applicants to sign a waiver that would let officials review an applicant’s mental-health-care records, the people briefed on the negotiations said.

The legislation’s text hasn’t been completed and some provisions could change before Thursday’s session, the people said. Democrats who control the state Assembly and Senate were scheduled to be briefed on the bill during private conferences on Wednesday, legislative officials said.

State Sen. Zellnor Myrie, a Democrat from Brooklyn who supports laws to curb gun violence, said he wanted to ensure that a new licensing process didn’t have a disparate impact on any particular group, like racial minorities.

“Some of this is us foraging into new territory, but doing so in a way that still follows the spirit of this ruling,” he said.

Republicans in the state cheered the Supreme Court ruling last week, and several said they didn’t see the need for additional legislation. Assemblyman Kieran Michael Lalor, a Republican from the Poughkeepsie area, said new requirements would simply burden law-abiding gun owners.

“The bad guys who commit these crimes do not follow the laws. They’re not going to sign a waiver. They’re not going to go to a training course before committing a murder,” he said of the new proposals."

Christine Mai-Duc and Deanna Paul contributed to this article.
Click to expand...
 
jhblaze1 said:
CA not wasting any time f***ing around

ktla.com

California moves to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed more people to carry concealed weapons, California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them, while strugglin…
ktla.com ktla.com

What I bolded......wtf does that mean?
Click to expand...
I assume it means if they go on Jaquan's Facebook and see he thinks all White people should be shot or if wannabe Jimmy School Shooter is streaming on Twitch and said he wants to blow away some kindergarten class, they won't get a CCW.

It is ripe for abuse tho.
 
This is no different than the intent behind the SCOTUS leak, except the thugs are now showing up at your house instead of the justices'.

This is about fear an intimidation..."Don't you even think about getting an LTC permit now that we have been forced to go Shall Issue. If you do, I hope you like your personal info blasted everywhere, because that's the plan!"
 
Waher said:
Registries getting leaked whenever some state employee feels like it? It's a feature not a bug to the power hungry state.

View: https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1541831522226929664


View: https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1541834569837584385


View: https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1541915229965225985
Click to expand...



Attorney General Bonta announced the new and updated firearms data available through the California Department of Justice (DOJ)’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal in a press release Monday:

“Transparency is key to increasing public trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve. As news of tragic mass shootings continue to dominate the news cycle, leaving many with feelings of fear and uncertainty, we must do everything we can to prevent gun violence. One of my continued priorities is to better provide information needed to help advance efforts that strengthen California’s commonsense gun laws. Today’s announcement puts power and information into the hands of our communities by helping them better understand the role and potential dangers of firearms within our state.”

“Instead, the leaked private information of gun owners is likely to increase the risk criminals will target their homes for burglaries–something the state’s dashboard reports happened 145,377 times in 2020 alone,” the Reload reported.

californiaglobe.com

Calif. Attorney General Leaks Names and Addresses of State’s Legal Gun Owners Following SCOTUS Gun Ruling - California Globe

Last week the Supreme Court issued a decision striking down a New York gun law that puts unconstitutional restrictions on concealed carry of a gun out in
californiaglobe.com californiaglobe.com
 
Picton said:
So... pretty much MA, but "shall-issue" and with a mental health component.

One wonders what specific disqualifiers are listed for the mental health check. Because they'd need to be enumerated.
Click to expand...

Much worse than Massachusetts. The places restrictions are far worse than Massachusetts and you know the training and fees will be much higher.
 
Picton said:
Oh, totally. But I'm assuming MA will soon have those, too.
Click to expand...

Massachusetts pols are lazy. Most of Massachusetts was de facto shall issue and they’ve never don’t a thing. CA and NJ ended the grandfathered non cripple mags, CA passes at least 3 gun control bills a year, sometimes more. Things are not perfect in Massachusetts but we don’t have purchase permits, waiting periods, etc like CA, NJ, etc.

Linsky has some of those loony bills each year and they never get any attention.

Gun control never seems to be a priority in mass. Healy is a loon, so she’d likely try to be more active
 
Is it a violation of the constitution under this new ruling to make someone go to a state in a high crime area (unarmed) just to apply when it can all be done in their home state. Just like dealing with the NFA.

Seems like a burden to me with unnecessary fees to drive or fly across the country (again unarmed), potentially pay for plane tickets, fuel, parking, hotel, days missed at work because it will only be available M-F 10 am-2pm whenever they tell you 6 months later and you can’t reschedule.

I can have a picture, fingerprints and whatever else done at my local PD or several local gun shops or even roll my own prints on cards the ATF will mail me for free.
 
Hoover said:
Massachusetts pols are lazy. Most of Massachusetts was de facto shall issue and they’ve never don’t a thing. CA and NJ ended the grandfathered non cripple mags, CA passes at least 3 gun control bills a year, sometimes more. Things are not perfect in Massachusetts but we don’t have purchase permits, waiting periods, etc like CA, NJ, etc.

Linsky has some of those loony bills each year and they never get any attention.

Gun control never seems to be a priority in mass. Healy is a loon, so she’d likely try to be more active
Click to expand...

We can hope it won't get worse. It ought to get better, but that's already taken longer than it ought to have.
 
So where does this leave someone facing trial for disregarding some other law? Can the accused go with "Yeah, well, I knew it (whatever he/she is accused of) was the law of the Land, knew it been affirmed by the highest legal authority in the country as being the law of the land, but like our AG, I didn't agree with that, so I did something else. "
 
T-Unit said:
More reasons for permitless carry!
Click to expand...
Bladerunner said:
This is no different than the intent behind the SCOTUS leak, except the thugs are now showing up at your house instead of the justices'.

This is about fear an intimidation..."Don't you even think about getting an LTC permit now that we have been forced to go Shall Issue. If you do, I hope you like your personal info blasted everywhere, because that's the plan!"
Click to expand...
People will just stop getting permits. See answer by T-Unit, above yours.


BrianWilson said:
So where does this leave someone facing trial for disregarding some other law? Can the accused go with "Yeah, well, I knew it (whatever he/she is accused of) was the law of the Land, knew it been affirmed by the highest legal authority in the country as being the law of the land, but like our AG, I didn't agree with that, so I did something else. "
Click to expand...
Start small. Ignore stop signs and red lights.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
119
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
741
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home
Replies
1
Views
132
sbhaven
S
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester State Court Gun Policy
Replies
12
Views
464
Mark from ?
M
Back
Top Bottom