T O P
jtf71

From the Bruen Decsion: > Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. So, after reading that the idiots “leading” New York decide to define almost the entirety of the state a “sensitive place.” Yeah, this should get slapped down in a preliminary injunction. It may have to go to SCOTUS at the injunction level, but that’s fine…so long as it happens quickly.


Datderthroway

Trying to see where they're coming from.. they're probably thinking that the state isn't declaring it a sensitive place but the businesses themselves are instead. Kinda a loophole if you consider the default mode being sensitive and they have to opt out of it. Creative but I don't think it'll work as long as some one does the standard lawsuit. They're just buying time


jtf71

> they're probably thinking that the state isn't declaring it a sensitive place but the businesses themselves are instead. I know this is NOT your view. Simply an explanation of what it might be. But you give them too much credit. That reasoning doesn't pass the sniff test. Today, and in all other states, the business can post a "no guns" sign if they want to. That firmly puts the decision in their hands. The "state" says nothing and leaves it up to the individual business to decide. In this case, however, the state is making a decision for the business via regulation/law. And their only justification can be that they're "sensitive places." The state argues that it will make the business and the public safer which is the same reason for banning guns in public buildings. So, since the logic is the same the evaluation is the same and the state is declaring the entire state to be a "sensitive place." And they are making a decision for the business and forcing them to take action if they disagree. This is directly contrary to the Bruen decision as noted above.


IsraelZulu

>Today, and in all other states, the business can post a "no guns" sign if they want to. That firmly puts the decision in their hands. The "state" says nothing and leaves it up to the individual business to decide. A bit more detail on this: Unless a state preempts property owners' rights in this regard (and I don't think any do), anyone can indeed put up a "no guns allowed" sign on their property. However, the effects of that sign vary from state to state. In some (perhaps most) states, it just means you've been notified and can reasonably expect that the property owner will ask you to leave if you violate their rule. If you resist ejection (or if the property owner just feels like doing it anyway) the property owner may pursue a trespass order, legally banning you from entering the property in the future. But, if you keep things cordial, and obey any such orders that may be issued, there's not going to be any criminal penalties for simply bringing your gun into a place where a property owner has put up a sign (assuming it's not a place otherwise defined in law as a gun-free zone). In other states though, provided that they conform to specific guidelines regarding their design and placement, "no guns allowed" signs are legally enforceable by criminal penalties. For those states, a property owner posting a compliant sign means that you could directly face arrest, imprisonment, and/or fines, as well as temporary or permanent loss of your Second Amendment rights (and some other important ones, like voting), if you bring a gun on their premises - regardless of how friendly and compliant you may be when asked to leave. So, the state does leave it up to the individual property owner to decide. But the states' involvement, should you choose to ignore the property owner's policy, may vary.


jtf71

> But the states' involvement, should you choose to ignore the property owner's policy, may vary. And this is the thing. While I don't think there should be *criminal* penalties for simply ignoring a "no guns" sign when there is no other crime committed, and where no other actual security is provided, I can accept that there may be some. And that's the state HELPING the property owner enforce their policy. It's still the property owner/business setting the policy. The proposed law in NY (which will pass) is taking the control from the business owner and making decisions for them. And while there is no liability for posting a "no guns" sign, I'm sure that if anyone is shot unlawfully in a business posting a "guns allowed" sign, they will be found liable for that third party **criminal's** actions.


IsraelZulu

>The proposed law in NY (which will pass) is taking the control from the business owner and making decisions for them. No. That's the whole point of the law giving the business owners an option to post a sign allowing guns. The decision is still up to the owners - it's just the default option that's changed. >And while there is no liability for posting a "no guns" sign, I'm sure that if anyone is shot unlawfully in a business posting a "guns allowed" sign, they will be found liable for that third party criminal's actions. I haven't read the proposal - is this part of that? It would be interesting to see such a case work its way through the courts, regardless. I expect - and sincerely hope - a lawsuit of this sort would be thrown out before it even really gets started.


jtf71

> No. That's the whole point of the law giving the business owners an option to post a sign allowing guns. The decision is still up to the owners - it's just the default option that's changed. Incorrect. It is making a decision for the business and then forcing them to take an action to reverse the decision made by the state. That is not how it's supposed to work. That is not freedom. The state shouldn't be making the decision for a private business. > I haven't read the proposal - is this part of that? I've not seen the language yet either. I'm going based on precedents where there have been many suits in many states trying to hold business owners liable when someone is shot on their property. The ruling is always (to the best of my knowledge) that since it wasn't a "foreseeable risk" the business owner isn't liable (like they are if there's a spill on the floor and they don't post a "wet floor" sign). I believe TN has passed a law that explicitly says that business owners are NOT liable if they DO NOT post a sign banning guns. The initial draft was, however, going to say they were liable if they posted a sign and a concealed carrier was harmed because they left their gun outside..but that was removed.


IsraelZulu

>It is making a decision for the business and then forcing them to take an action to reverse the decision made by the state. That is not how it's supposed to work. That is not freedom. The state shouldn't be making the decision for a private business So, every other state has made the decision that guns are to be allowed on your property unless you take action to declare otherwise. How is this not the same? From the general public's position, the decision and adverse impact is clear. But for the business owner, it really matters little which option is the default so long as there remains a simple way to choose the other. Many businesses already choose to be anti-gun. With how common it is among major national and regional chains, it might even be the existing policy on *most* non-residential private properties. If that's the case, then this law is just adding state support to what has already become a cultural norm. For that likely majority of property owners, until now, the state has decided that guns are allowed on their property unless the owner declares otherwise. I'm sure they'll be really happy to no longer have to post and maintain that extra signage, when the new law flips the default rule.


BigBen791

It's different because the default state in the whole country is that guns are allowed and the states that provide codification and weight of law for no gun signage are merely putting the force of law behind the choice of the property owner. As far as I know there is no state that explicitly forbids posting signs saying guns are not allowed and there is also some form of trespass law everywhere which a person is violating as soon as they refuse to leave private property for any non-protected reason.


IsraelZulu

Yes, it's different from the norm. But either way still has a default state which the property owner must take action to opt out from. In either scheme, the law is saying (at least, implicitly) "guns on your property will be treated this way, unless you declare otherwise". In the rest of the country, the default is permissive. Under the New York proposal, the default will be restrictive. In all cases though, including New York's, property owners still retain the right to override the law's default rule on their land. So, the law is only really different in its terms - not its nature. To be clear, I'm not agreeing with the law at all. Its impact to the general public is certainly egregious and, per SCOTUS' latest ruling, likely unconstitutional. But what makes this law wrong is its effects on individuals' Second Amendment rights - not any impact to property owners in particular.


jtf71

> So, every other state has made the decision that guns are to be allowed on your property unless you take action to declare otherwise. No. The state has made NO decision. It's said nothing. Everything is legal until and unless the government says it's not. > With how common it is among major national and regional chains, it might even be the existing policy on most non-residential private properties. Far from it. While some chains have done so not all have. And of those that have a "policy" they don't all post the required signs. > For that likely majority of property owners, until now, the state has decided that guns are allowed on their property unless the owner declares otherwise. Again, no. The state has made no decision. It's said nothing. So the property owner/lessee is free to make their own choices. > I'm sure they'll be really happy to no longer have to post and maintain that extra signage, when the new law flips the default rule. Most don't care. If they did they'd post the sign. So now, they'll still not care but they won't post a "guns welcome" sign. And legal carriers that were carrying in that store before no longer can. The store owner doesn't care enough to post the sign and is afraid of the Karen's that will picket and boycott despite being a small number of people. The state should NOT be doing this and, I believe that it is not permissible for them to do so under the Bruen ruling. But they're going to do it anyway and spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars defending the suit that they'll lose in a few years - and will likely get an injunction against it much sooner.


Monk-E_321

With NYC being a bastion of anti gun sentiment, I could see businesses that put up a pro gun sign facing financial and social repercussions. The type of attention that they don’t want, from very willing and bold adversaries, in an unfriendly and unsupportive legal venue. If the shop owner or employees want to carry while operating the business in other states, they don’t need to advertise themselves as a target like this would (likely) require.


dturtleman150

There’s absolutely no way that, as a business owner, you should be allowed to ban guns from your business, and yet assume *no* responsibility for the safety of people you have forced to be disarmed. Bullshit. You can’t have it both ways. Sounds like a boycott would be in order.


DarkSyde3000

Yup. These signs hold no legal weight whatsoever in my state. Costco use to have one until they found out it's pointless and took it down.


TheProfessor_18

Would not be surprised to see a little wink and nudge on every health inspection.


CapoDV

I don't think it will work either. This is a weak attempt at avoiding state action because at the end of the day the state is saying you cannot carry unless... I've said this in another thread. Between this and CA the laws are intentionally overbroad because the supreme court did not define sensitive places. The states are hoping to get back to the Court in a case where sensitive place (and in CA, notice) are at issue so that the court can properly decide it. I don't see the court not taking up a case on the violation of these laws. Especially since it seems like a middle finger to the court. Of course, first someone needs to violate the law and get charged for such. Theoretically if it is the law and never enforced it will never touch the court. Unlikely, but possible. I think the over zealous eager legislator that is trying to limit our carry rights will actually increase them.


IsraelZulu

>Theoretically if it is the law and never enforced *upon someone with enough money to fight it, or enough appeal to garner the support of a well-funded advocacy group,* it will never touch the court. FTFY


CapoDV

Silly me! Lol


tianavitoli

it will. these people are indentured to victimhood first and foremost. they take losing positions so they can parade around their virtuous, bold, and brave actions; then they shop around their failure on the backend. they get to have it both ways.


PaperPigGolf

But is ANY business open to the public a sensitive place? You could potentially argue private premises that are only accessible by explicit invite may be more private.


tianavitoli

it's the same thing they are doing with everything else, outsourcing and enjoining. they decided what your opinion is and you have to manually opt out. most people don't even know what's going on, let alone that they can opt out, or that they must. these people run on humiliation. everything revolves around it. it's not designed for you to understand, it's designed for you to obey.


DesertVeteran_PA-C

The SCOTUS decision specifically said that the default is “not sensitive”, and that a sensitive place would have to have historical basis considering it sensitive. Schools, court houses, hospitals…. No problem.


KXLY

How quickly could it be slapped down? What’s the typical turnaround time for that sort of thing?


jtf71

I don’t have an exact number. If struck down at first level it never goes into effect. But this is NY so it probably won’t. It will go to various appeals levels before getting to SCOTUS. So I’d expect a few months **if** it gets enjoined as it should. If not, then it will be years. Given that the Bruen ruling already addressed this it should be fast. But we’ve seen the tortured logic lower courts have used and will use again.


cosmos7

Years... which is why they pass this kind of crap. It either sticks or else spends years winding its way through the courts while it stays on the books.


Reloaded9mm

So in 4 or 5 years, it might be ruled unconstitutional. In the mean time they will enforce it. By then, they’ll have other laws ready to go. Answer is, fuck’em and just do what you want. Carry everywhere, without exception.


jtf71

I’m hoping an injunction blocks it in weeks. A full case getting to SCOTUS would take 4-7 years.


Reloaded9mm

It will be like in CA. The injunction won’t over turn it, they know this. The judge will uphold it until it can get to the Supreme Court. And if the judge does over turn it, they will appeal it to another judge and another and another until they get what they want. This shit has to stop. It should be grounds for immediate removal from office.


jtf71

> And if the judge does over turn it, they will appeal it to another judge and another and another until they get what they want. This is going to happen regardless of who wins at the first court. Which is why I say the request for an injunction will end up at SCOTUS. And it won't take years for that to happen. > This shit has to stop. It should be grounds for immediate removal from office. And given that they politicians pushing it have been openly saying they're doing it to subvert a ruling of SCOTUS, and thus the US Constitution, they should be put in prison for a lengthy time and barred from ever holding public office again (elected, nominated, appointed etc) or any other position of "public trust." I caveat this by saying that while part of me likes the idea that any politician passing any law ruled unconstitutional should be so punished, we have to understand that in many cases they don't intentionally violate the constitution and they can't know for sure until after they've passed the law, it's challenged, and then ruled on. And, as we know, even SCOTUS rulings can be overturned. If we jail those who make mistakes we'll have no legislators and thus anarchy. But in cases like this one (and there are others) where they go into it knowing it's unconstitutional and that's their plan, the punishments should be severe.


Reloaded9mm

Exactly why this has been proposed : [Unconstitutional laws](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewAmendments/comments/u84upc/amendment_xxx_unconstitutional_laws/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) Of course it should be reviewed to be determined if it was intentional or not. But even so it should be there to make politicians second guess their new laws they try and put in place. Make it so it is harder to chip away at peoples rights.


jtf71

> Of course it should be reviewed to be determined if it was intentional or not Which is not in that proposed amendment. And I think it should apply to lower levels as well. As we've seen it's the School Boards that are fucking things up a lot. And there are local city/county legislators that put in place all sorts of things that are unconstitutional but may not be challenged by having such a hyper-local impact and the cost of fighting them. So, it should apply at all levels. Maybe the punishment is tiered based on years of experience in a legislative role for the lower legislative bodies. But there are those that stay at that level for decades for the power. I think we're in agreement on the concept, but (as always) the devil is in the details.


Reloaded9mm

Of course the details are difficult. But the intent is important to have.


jtf71

Agreed. If we could actually get a Rep/Senator to support it and push for it then I'd support it. But since it has to be a Rep/Senator to introduce it, and it will limit their power and possibly put them in jail, they're never going to do so.


Reloaded9mm

Sad but true. Maybe after we revise it after the revolution? If that ever happens.


tianavitoli

that's the point. they only have a short time left in power. they have to ensnare as many opposition voters as they can, in felonies, before they lose control. every single poll, including internal campaign polls, is showing democrats losing massively in november. they do not have a legitimate pathway to victory. however, losing means being subjected to the same endless investigations they projected onto republicans the last 6 years. the stakes are very high, losing probably means being shut out of power for the next 6-10 years, and everything coming to light. this justifies every imaginable illegitimate means, because if it works, it doesn't matter how illegal it was.


stumpinandthumpin

Not to mention that it would massively inconvenience those who bribed for permits under the old system.


koenigseggCC7

Would’ve loved to be a fly on the wall in that room listening to the mental gymnastics on how that satisfies text, history, and tradition.


napsar

They don’t care. It’s not even the least of their concerns.


withoutapaddle

Exactly. Those conversations aren't about what's legal, etc. The conversation in that room is "can we get away with this". Same conversation that corporations have when they do blatantly illegal stuff knowing the penalties will be less than the profits, or when police or other corrupt organizations decide how to handle a situation where they recognize an opportunity to take advantage, etc. America's mantra is "How much greed/control can I get away with". Morals, ethics, laws, history, statistics, etc have no bearing on the actions of an organization if they think they can escape the consequences.


tianavitoli

i'm gonna make a bold proposal, that this is a feature not a flaw. sometimes begging forgiveness is easier than asking permission. these people who take this to the immoral extremes over years embroil their constituents to the point where historically, they are rounded up and... let's just say shown the door. they've consolidated themselves in a way that makes this removal of the garbage reasonably easy to... execute. after which we get decades of reasonableness and prosperity. it needs to be understood that this... cleanup of the environment, is simply part of our civic duty. we've had it good for a long time, so we've forgotten what it's like to... clean up our room. real freedom is always an ebb and flow, and its during the ebb that the power hungry and corrupt find a false sense of security that the ebb they've inspired will last forever. we're fortunate to be a part of the cycle when we get to witness what it's like when aunt flow comes through town.


gtFreeSmoke

Blows my mind


TheOkayestName

At least it didn’t blow your lungs like a 9mm does


Caedus_Vao

The founding fathers didn't own any 9mm, it's not what they intended! Sheesh guys c'mon.


MerryMortician

Tally Ho lads!


hellidad

Triangular wounds which are impossible to stitch..


TomMikeson

They did own muskets though.... Those are now illegal in NY.


Rukagaku

You could own a cannon, which will in fact blow your lungs out though


Caedus_Vao

Much more likely to blow the other guy's lungs out. And the other 14 around him if you're using cannister.


NotAWoman2

45 mm musket ball careening through your gut


MakeHappy764

“Oh we don’t give a fuck about any of that, the gloves are completely off now. We will do whatever it takes to get around this ruling, regardless of the blatant unconstitutionality.” I’m honestly a little nervous at how far places like New York and New Jersey will be willing to go to resist this ruling, even so far as to direct their police forces to ignore the ruling entirely “until it can be properly contested in court” or some other BS


Jv1856

I don’t think there is any more contesting left after the Supreme Court rules. They just have to write a new bullshit law


Interesting-Low-6356

This is literally from CA’s amended bill. Basically saying we know this is unconstitutional . So you’ll have to sue us on each section separately. “SEC. 8. Section 25350 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 25350. If any section, subdivision, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of any provision in this division iS for any reason held unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of any other provision in the division. The Legislature hereby declares that it would have passed the provisions listed in this division and each chapter, section, subdivision, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of those provisions irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subdivisions, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.”


koenigseggCC7

Upstate LEOs largely won’t enforce it, just like with the SAFE Act. And the clear direction in the Bruen opinion forces the hand of the district courts to rule in our favor much sooner as well as issue injunctions during the process.


sirspidermonkey

While I"m not for it, I don't think it would be that hard for a conservative court to come up with a justification. Something simple like "We have a strong tradition of private property. Private property allows the owener to control who goes on their property and in what condition. Just as you can choose to not let a drunk person into a bar, you can choose to not let an armed person into your store. " You can choose to not let protestors in your store and that's not a violation of their free speech. Then not letting armed people in your store isn't a violation of their second amendment rights. The real trick will be how do you enforce it.


udmh-nto

Business can choose to not let people who carry concealed in. That's not a problem. The problem is changing the default. Imagine if they changed "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent."


The_Mosephus

most criminal suspects don't have to imagine that reality...


dturtleman150

Those businesses richly deserve to go out of business. Poverty.


koenigseggCC7

Except in this case the state is controlling who goes on their property by default. I agree that allowing businesses to restrict armed persons is constitutional. That’s not what this is.


Melkor7410

Nah, this is the state banning it, not the private businesses. The way it's done currently where the business must explicitly say no guns is the way it should be.


ArmDue4512

How about the government telling youtube and facebook to ban any discussion of side effects of a certain injection. Is that a 1st amendment violation? It seems not.


napsar

Hard to argue about private property rights when NY has decided that all business automatically ban guns unless otherwise told. I think the clear implication NY is giving out is if a business does allow them, then they will be liable if something happens since they were allowed. A lot of legal limbo there.


Ennuiandthensome

just imagine extending that argument 10mm further: >"We have a strong tradition of private property. Private property allows the owner to control who goes on their property and in what condition. Just as you can choose to not let a ~~drunk~~ gay person into a bar, you can choose to not let an armed person into your store. "


sirspidermonkey

Currently the legal arument would be While carrying a gun is a right, it isn't a protected class. You have a choice to carry a gun, but not so much being gay. However, I know lots of libertarians and conservatives that make that very argument. That you should be allowed to discriminate since it's yours and if the free market doesn't like it, you'll be slapped by the invisibile hand....Historically that may not be the case but it's an argument i've heard. Side note I found it ironic in the pandemic that the same people who said they had a "right" not to wear a mask in a private business, were often the same ones who said you shouldn't be forced to make a cake for a gay couple.


Ennuiandthensome

This isn't a business discriminating, though. It's the government telling a business to discriminate by default unless they opt out and post a sign. It's like texas saying short people cannot enter a store unless the owner puts a sign up indicating otherwise, which is on its face unconstitutional based on the Equal Protections clause. The government is excluding a section of the population from commerce by default.


sirspidermonkey

>It's like texas saying short people cannot enter a store Except you can't change being short. You can change if you are carrying a gun to go into a store. You aren't prevented from from going into that store no matter what. It's like claiming "no shirt, no shoes, no service" discriminates against the shirtless. And side note: We also do ban short people from some activities. "Must be this tall to ride" being the obvious one.


Ennuiandthensome

>Except you can't change being short. You can change if you are carrying a gun to go into a store. You aren't prevented from from going into that store no matter what. I can change my hair color. Would you support a business banning all gingers? >And side note: We also do ban short people from some activities. "Must be this tall to ride" being the obvious one. A restriction on a specific activity due to safety regulations is entirely different from a blanket ban on market participation based on the execution of a Constitutionally protected activity.


sirspidermonkey

>I can change my hair color. Would you support a business banning all gingers? Is "No shirt, no shoes no service" discrimintory?


Ennuiandthensome

No, because that's a non-arbitrary regulation based on public health. Arbitrary exclusions from commerce are the discriminatory activity here.


sirspidermonkey

>No, because that's a non-arbitrary regulation based on public health And I'm sure they will claim the same about this regulation. Are you really claiming you think a t shirt provides some sort of sanitary barrier to buy a soda at the local 7/11 saves people? I promise you, while the number of criminal CCWers is small, they have killed a more people than a lack of t-shirts in a bodega. >Arbitrary exclusions from commerce are the discriminatory activity here. Except you aren't excluded here. You can put on a shirt, leave your gun in the glove box, and go on in. Look, I'm not advocating that this is a good policy. I'm not advocating it's a reasonable policy. But all the folks here claiming it's inherently discriminatory don't understand what that means in a legal sense.


tianavitoli

it's more like saying housing is your right, but if you buy a house, we're going to extract resources from you until you can't afford to own the house anymore and have to sell it.


KSGunner

Let me make it real simple for you, if you replace CCW holder with black person or jew would it stand up to Constitutional scrutiny? The answer is a resounding no.


bnolsen

It's called trespassing. Laws already on the books. They can pass laws faster than the judges can toss them out. They are resorting to full on bullying using infinite tax payer funds.


-HammBone-

Folks are going to have to start talking with their money and taking their tax dollars with them to states where it isnt used to trample the people. Defund the lunacy.


BimmerJustin

As a NYer (not NYC) I prefer to stay and fight. This is my home, and last I checked, NY was a state within the US and thus falls under the jurisdiction of the US constitution.


-HammBone-

You are right that NY falls under the US constitution and should not be imposing the restrictions they are. What is your plan to fight from within? Money seems to be the only real reliable way to get a politicians attention, try to withhold tax money while you live there and someone with a badge and gun will eventually show up to lock you up. The people leaving a state sends a pretty solid message.


BimmerJustin

What money are they losing when you move out of the state? Presumably, you sell your house to someone, or someone else moves into your former home. All they really lose is a pro-2A viewpoint. And this is exactly what they want. They want you to pick up and move. As the pro-2A population leaves, its backfilled by anti-2A people seeking refuge from states that honor the constitution. Thus becoming a positive feedback loop for anti-gun policy. The way I fight is two-fold; first, I vote against any politicians that are blatantly anti-2A (at a state level). second, I encourage friends and family to go shooting. I do my best to bring them into the fold. Anti-2A politician's primary goal is eradicating gun culture and gun enthusiasts from the state. I wont be pushed out of my home.


-HammBone-

Not everyone lives in a house. Lots of folks in apartments and rentals that may not be re filled. That's what the beauty of These United States is supposed to be, each state is free to govern itself as much or as little as it wishes. If it wants to govern itself into a shit hole so be it, but the people are also free to say peace out and go to a state that isn't commiting the same infringements. If the population of a state can grow it can shrink too, this refuses the tax base. Best of luck to ya brother, hope y'all figure out how to vote harder next time I guess. 🤷 If it wasn't for the horrendous endless list of oppressive laws and tax burdens, NY would be a beautiful state to live in(minus the city of course) By the way, I appreciate the way you break up your posts to make it easier to read through 👍


BimmerJustin

NY population has been slowly declining over the years, no dispute there. But that doesn't mean people are only leaving. People still move here. The churn of people seems to favor anti-gun policies, its not sending any kind of message. If anything, its sending the opposite message. Its sending the message that anti-gun people are moving here and pro-2A people are leaving. Thus creating a mandate for the state government to implement restrictive gun policy. All that said, restrictive gun policy is unconstitutional. My best hope for restoration of rights is through the courts. I dont want to vote based on 2A issues. I shouldn't have to. The debate should be settled, and I am hopeful that we will make progress through the federal court system over time.


Tynmyr

NY was the state with the highest percents in population decline in 2021. Close to -2%. So I guess that’s already starting to happen.


Reloaded9mm

Stop paying taxes; justification are the Unconstitutional laws, I.e. they aren’t doing their job with your money. (Wish this was a legal recourse)


BimmerJustin

Or just carry where you want. concealed is concealed.


Reloaded9mm

Of course, but being caught can be expensive.


GunsLawyersandMoney

Unconstitutional, kill it with fire.


17-6spd-GT

C. Thomas still hasnt healed up from his burns writing that last fire opinion.


geterdone317

This will go to SCOTUS and be ruled unconstitutional. Best case scenario is scotus rules really broadly to allow Concealed carry almost everywhere


Frieda-_-Claxton

I think they're going to keep changing the law to side step the court. Legislatures can move much faster than courts and they're more inclined than ever to be deliberately obtuse to get around the spirit of whatever particular rule they don't like. This is going to apply to more than the second amendment.


cadams7701

The more they screw around to circumvent rights the more likely it is that SCOTUS throws all gun laws out. NY has learned nothing.


KXLY

That’s my impression as well. I suspect that if the court has to rule again on this in two years time then they’ll lose their patience and do just that. NY and California are really unwise to screw around the way they are. It goes to show they care more about virtue signaling than public safety.


Cmonster9

Funny how they go after the gun community and manufacturers for doing the same thing and trying to "skirt" the law.


geterdone317

Agreed the SCOTUS decision is actually hurting the people in Ny who had unrestricted CC licenses before


udmh-nto

The SCOTUS decision isn't hurting unrestricted permit holders, NY legislators reacting to SCOTUS decision are. But they could have made those changes anyway, just needed another resonant shooting.


left_schwift

All 10 of them


KaBar42

> Agreed the SCOTUS decision is actually hurting the people in Ny who had unrestricted CC licenses before "Officer, why did you tase and arrest my boyfriend? Now once he's out of jail, he's just going to beat me even harder and for longer! This is your fault!" The SCOTUS decision ain't hurting anyone, New York is.


BrockSramson

I think you need to replace a justice or 2 before you'll get constitutional carry every where from the SC.


MangoAtrocity

PLEASE let me CCW in the post office. I hate taking my gun off to deliver mail.


[deleted]

>This will go to SCOTUS and be ruled unconstitutional. Devil's advocate and this won't be a popular opinion here, but how is this any different from Louisiana's law that states you can't carry into a private residence without the explicit permission of the homeowner? Louisiana is hardly a bastion of anti-gun sentiment but we've got that law here.... This is the same, except it's businesses rather than residences. I think this is pretty stupid, businesses were free to post "No Guns" signs before, but I'm not seeing the constitutional challenge here.


merc08

A private residence is different than a place that is routinely open to the public.


[deleted]

In your mind. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ The reality is businesses don't really wanna take sides here, no matter what they do they piss off a sizable number of potential customers, and any attempt at splitting the difference just pisses off **everyone**. Recall the businesses that very politely **asked** (not mandated) people not to **open** carry a few years ago, e.g., Target, Starbucks, etc. They didn't initially try to prohibit **concealed** carry, or even technically open carry (it was a request, not a mandate), but they still got eviscerated by folks on our side of the issue.


Scuzmak

NYer here. Let's talk through this. You leave home with your CCW, and you need to make 5 stops throughout the day while carrying. None of them are a previously designated 'Sensitive Place'. Under this law, you now may have to remove the CCW and stow it in the car while you do these errands. If you believe in probability, you are now exponentially increasing the odds of having an AD/ND, as well as losing the CCW to theft (bringing a once legal gun into the black market), all while disarming a legal, presumably responsible owner in the face of illegal or ill-intending carriers. Great plan...


burgonies

They want you to leave it at home.


Scuzmak

Yes, I know.


gtFreeSmoke

Remember.. they’re implementing laws on how to store your firearm in your car, another hurdle


iLoveLamp83

That's a feature, not a bug. An ND shows that guns are dangerous, therefore need more restriction.


Reloaded9mm

Even worse is that they will include parking lots of those places as well. Meaning you can’t even park there and stow it in your car.


threeLetterMeyhem

I assume NY has some sort of safe storage law that will make *you* the criminal if it gets stolen out of your car, too, right? That's a thing that's happening in Colorado - localities are starting to ban CCW in public spaces, but we have a safe storage law that makes you the criminal if it gets taken from your car when you're trying to comply with the other laws.


fatasianboi

I take my gun on and off all the time. No risk of ND at all because it stays in my kydex holster the entire time with the trigger fully encased. I’d throw that point out.


Scuzmak

I respectfully disagree, but that's totally fine.


fatasianboi

Respectfully, if you think removing your firearm in a proper holster increases the chance of a ND, you don’t know how to safely handle a gun.


Scuzmak

Assuming all are equally trained and using the same holster: Owner A) Keeps holstered gun in safe, removes only to bring to range once per month. Owner B) Carries daily, donning and removing holstered gun from belt twice a day. Owner C) Carries daily, donning and removing holstered gun eight times a day. Who, in your opinion, has the higher probability of an AD or ND?


tianavitoli

this is a bridge to their real intention. complicated gun laws that ensnare people, who generally will be voting something other than democrat, in felonies that cost them voting rights. the DA will dismiss the case for the person with the blm/ukraine flag in their twitter bio, and throw the book at anyone else obviously not wearing enough flair.


Coomer-Boomer

Probably violates the first amendment. Commercial speech gets less protection, but this is similar to the *Becerra* case. It's targeting the speaker (businesses) for not agreeing with the NY party line on guns. The information has nothing to do with the business's services or products and is about a controversial political issue. That's assuming it doesn't exempt the business owners themselves. Certainly it violates the second amendment, just thought the first amendment issue was somewhat novel in this context. It's essentially a ban on bearing arms while engaging in commercial activity, with permission available as a defense. You know the cops are going to hassle the shit out of people and say afterwards, "I thought the owner looked scared and said what he did to not piss off scary gun guy." You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.


IsraelZulu

I don't see how it violates the First Amendment any more than a law to the opposite effect - requiring business owners to post a sign if they *don't* want guns on their property - would. And those sorts of laws already exist. Certain states say that business owners can post "no guns allowed" signs, but they'll only be legally enforceable (beyond a simple trespass warning, which anyone can do for any reason regardless) if they comply with certain guidelines regarding their design and placement. Nobody's claiming that's violating First Amendment rights, and I doubt such claims would stand. Such arguments could just as easily be applied to signs for handicap-reserved spaces in parking lots, employee rights signs in workplaces, display of business licenses, elevator inspection certificates, and more. This is not at all to say I agree with the proposed law in question here. Just that the First Amendment arguments against it either won't fly at all, or they'll end up impacting a lot of actually good laws. Edit to add: > You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. This philosophy has been in my mind for quite awhile now, but I've never before seen it put in such a succinct and catchy manner. Thank you for introducing me to this.


Coomer-Boomer

First, the no-guns sign is fundamentally different than the yay-guns sign. The business owners aren't forfeiting the exercise of a constitutional right if they don't post the no-guns sign. Posting the sign forbidding guns grants you special privileges (juiced up trespassing complaints). Not posting the sign costs you nothing. With the guns allowed sign, you, not posting it costs you the ability to exercise your rights at work. And the risk is much greater - non conforming no-gun signs don't leave you any worse off. A non-conforming gun permitting sign puts anyone who relies on it in serious legal jeopardy. One is a special privilege you can use at your discretion, one is a hoop you have to jump through to exercise your rights. As to the handicap signs and such, I'd recommend skimming [Becerra](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1140). There are only two contexts where commercial speech receives less protection than non-commercial - "where professionals were required to disclose “factual, noncontroversial information in their ‘commercial speech,’’’ and where states regulated professional conduct that incidentally implicated speech." The signs you describe easily fall into those categories, and aren't threatened by any of this. The requirement for posting a sign is more like the requirements imposed by California in the aforementioned case - justified by only hypothetical harms, regarding a controversial political issue rather than the business's products or services, and totally disconnected from any legitimate state interest.


gtFreeSmoke

It’s crazy how they always find a new way to violate the constitution


TheOkayestName

It’s as almost as if they’re tyrants or something


ProfessionalBreaddit

And not a peep from Reddit. Makes ya wonder if they do actually care about rights. > Unable to kill babies: REEEEEE DA SUPREMEM COURT JUS DA RACISIM > > Actual right infringement: heheh I like dis.


Either-Individual887

Null and void


mctoasterson

Imagine the right to free speech being expressly forbidden in parks, sidewalks, schools, basically any building, all methods of transportation... but it's OK because you can speak in businesses that explicitly allow it.


Calpin_18

Based on the recent desicion specifically comparing the second amendment, wouldn't this be akin to the state saying free speech is banned in all businesses except those that specifically have a sign saying '"Free speech welcome." Sounds unconstitutional to me. Which other right to you have to have granted by bussiness owners? The opposite scheme is legal. Business owners can ask you to leave if they don't like your speech, but presumptively banning a right unless expressly granted permission won't hold up.


Sigrah117

So a background check on ammunition for firearms that require a permit that you had to get a background check done to get said permit that normally allows the waving of the background check during a purchase because the background check was conducted during the permitting process. So I just buy ammunition as normal?


mo9722

no, now ammo must be shipped to an ffl and you need to pay a fee to have the check done... assuming it gets through


khearan

Plus FFL transfer fee


Sigrah117

Shouldn't if you have a permit.


Have_you_seen_MOLLE

“Oh boy, here I go infringing again” -NY lawmakers


georgia_moose

Criminals already walk into businesses that don't explicitely allow conceal carry. So much for public safety concern.


KaptainH

California doing the same thing..


blacksideblue

and its a big fucking deal how toxic California is doing it. They're not just increasing the cost for ammo background check by x19, they're straight up [doxing the few that already had CCW permits](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-doj-data-breach-exposes-personal-information-concealed-carr-rcna35849)


dis6wood

What’s funny is that general public has no problem with this ruling. It’s the ruling class and the media that have taken issue with it. They again show that they simply don’t want law abiding citizens to be able to arm themselves


[deleted]

Oh man my job says no firearms. It’s too bad I don’t leave my well being Upto to cucks running this place.


ogskiggles

Clarence Thomas needs to slap the shit out of Queen Hochul and her court of tyrants again. There is no end to the fucked up tyrannical shit this state concocts.


DruNicholi

If you’re properly concealed, this shouldn’t be an issue in the first place.


milguy11

And the rules they’ve imposed will abso result in another lawsuit… here’s a tip NY: Criminals DO NOT apply for CCW permits….


Jack_Shid

And any business that chooses to explicitly allow it will have their liability insurance rates triple, because they are "inviting" guns onto the premesis.


MangoAtrocity

Doesn’t that explicitly go against the recent SCOTUS decision?


KSGunner

Yes


Sizzle_Biscuit

Concealed means concealed.


Throttle_Out_

Won't make any difference what these businesses want or say. If I am concealed carrying, I'm doing it everywhere. If they kick me out of the restaurant because someone sees it then BYE BYE.


Lysdexiic

That's exactly how I feel as well. I'll take my chances and if they happen to find out somehow then I'll leave. If you can't guarantee my safety then I will


Reloaded9mm

CA already passed it. Basically no concealed carry anywhere even private businesses unless they post a sign saying it is OK.


CaptLakeEffect

So now business owners have to post “guns allowed” signs on their property? Yea, they know very few will do that because of the blowback in making that public declaration


spoilingattack

This too will be crushed by SCOTUS.


pr177

Fuck Democrats so much.


OtterAmerica

So incredibly stupid.


pushingbtns

They still think they have a rubber stamp approval to infringe. They’ll get the message when the injunctions roll in.


Applejaxc

Setting up a Kafka trap for these businesses to be sued for creating unsafe situations if a CCW gets used. The inverse of what *should* happen, suing places that ban CCW if a customer is thusly unable to protect themself


Bulky_Ganache_1197

That will make you WAY more safe from mass shootings in these locations because the mass shooter will follow the law.... or you'll have a bunch of sitting ducks in a barrel.


blueangel1953

Fuck NY.


Doom-Muffin

We are living in the end of times


Coleyobooster

Ahhhh I see, New York doesn’t know what *concealed* means LMAO


Gunswetta

That’s cool. They’ll get sued again…


xkeepitquietx

Just dems being petty.


blackmanic

CA , wants to be the second state to get that fat injunction!


ItsRookPlays

Seems like some minimum wage employee just trying to get by will have to report firearm offenses and testify in court.


DrMeathead13

Who’s gonna know?


manbearpig0101

The bill currently in California's legislator committee thing says exactly that. No carry at any business that does nit conspicuously post that it is allowed....


viper12a1a

Why would they need a law for this? Companies already do this. A lot of the reason truckers have a hard time carrying is because most shipper/receivers don't allow guns on the property


Need-More-Calcium

There’s a difference between a state allowing concealed carry in businesses that don’t explicitly prohibit it (implicit permission given - many states have this) vs a state only allowing concealed carry in businesses that explicitly allow it (explicit permission necessary - this would be unique to NY) The difference is in most states, if a business has no policy on guns, you can concealed carry there. But in NY, you would not be able to concealed carry it the business has no policy on guns. The business would have to pass a policy explicitly allowing concealed carry.


viper12a1a

Ah that makes more sense


Sabertoothsnowhobbit

NY legislators breaking their oath of office.


FL_Sportsman

Next up on states I'll never set foot in


nothankyou821

New York and California duking it out to see who can make the the most B.S. gun laws. New York is pulling ahead at the moment. What you got next California???


DarkSyde3000

Let em, they're just going to get sued into oblivion anyway. I know they want their safe spaces where only criminals kill people with guns, but that's no longer allowed. The caveat to this of course you're carrying concealed. If done correctly the people in these 'sensitive places' won't know you're carrying anyway.


Literaturefans

Like are people supposed to walk into a business and loudly proclaim **"Attention everyone... I HAVE A FIREARM!!!** Can you please tell me where the manager is so I can ask them if I have permission to carry inside this establishment?


Prolifik206

That’s what the signs are for…


FaithfulDowter

Then those very same businesses need to be liable for the personal safety of every patron. Armed guards in every room/hallway.


Sinochu

This whole "Opt-In" model of firearm restriction signs is stupid. Its clearly meant to make it a death sentence for businesses in anti-gun areas to post signs saying "We allow conceal carry of weapons" because the average ignorant civilian will think *"Oh no, they allow firearms in here! I'm not safe!"* even though violent criminals or mass shooters would carry firearms into a building regardless of the sign. It only stops those who are law-abiding and want to be in good faith of doing so, of course many would choose to carry anyways even if they are otherwise law-abiding because they realize this.


GreenGiantI2I

I am NYS resident with a concealed carry license. I am exceptionally liberal and usually walk some line between liberals and conservatives when it comes to gun laws. This one is crazy.


BimmerJustin

As another NYS liberal who also has a CCW, I think their biggest fear, moreso than people actually carrying, is that non-gun owners will go purchase a gun, get a CCW and stop voting for them. There are very few issues where a person's politics can change with a purchase/decision. The choice to arm oneself can do this. Their primary goal is rooting out "gun culture" i.e. gun enthusiasts.


Leviathanmine

I would like a law that specifically excludes pedophiles from my business unless I explicitly allow it.


keystonecraft

That would set an interesting president. It would create sovereignty within a personal business, home or establishment, outside the bounds of US law. wouldnt it be funny if they accidentally made the sovereign citizen movement completely legit? You could write whatever laws you wanted in your own house.


HornetHoverPlane

What? You guys thought that they were going to make a law that was reasonable? LOL. No.


MaxwellFinium

They just want the highest score for unconstitutional gun laws. They’re tired of California getting all the glory.


redjade42

ca beat them to it


Sea_Farmer_4812

Californias newly proposed restrictions in response to the ruling accomplish nearly the same thing, businesses open to the public have to post if guns are allowed.


cschoonmaker

Has NY actually passed legislation to this effect yet? Or just working on it? Because CA might beat them to the punch if they haven’t already enacted it. CA has SB918 going through now which does the same thing and more.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ok-Maybe-9338

"Shall not be infringed." Drop the "upon" That's not what it says. It's incorrect. If you're going to quote The Constitution, please get it right.


Lord_Dreadlow

\>Businesses that want guns around would have to put up a sign reading, "Concealed weapons welcome here," or words to that effect, Hochul said."Otherwise the presumption will be in the state of New York that theyare not." Now the bad guys can easily identify the soft targets from the hard targets.


Corpuscular_Crumpet

It’s hard enough fighting against Defenders-of-Rights-in-Name-Only, let alone these schemers who want to disarm everyone. Yes, they do not care about people’s rights.


bpf62

One would think the legislators would have a better understanding of the SCOTUS ruling.


TheWheelGatMan

It's like a 4 or 5 year old when you tell them they can't have dessert because they won't stop acting a fool and they can have it tomorrow if they do good now but they keep running around the house screaming and throwing things. They know what they're doing, they know it's wrong, but by golly your not gonna tell them what to do cuz you took away their dessert.


[deleted]

New York and CA are lame.


ChiefChiefChiefChief

Not a w


Bunny_Buster

Does this just apply to NYC or the whole state?


MaxHound22

If the state thinks all private property should by default by a sensitive place, they need to put their money where their mouth is. They should provide round the clock armed security for every home and business in the state. These are sensitive places after all. If they decline to provide adequate protection, that decision should exemplify just how “sensitive” the state actually regards these locations in reality. And if they are doing this to spite the court, and deny citizens their rights, they should be dealt with accordingly.


DesertVeteran_PA-C

Concealed means CONCEALED.


brickmasta206

Long as there’s no x-ray machine or pat down to enter, what you don’t know won’t hurt you. My heart goes out to the legal gun owners in states like NY and CA, here in WA our “high capacity” mag ban goes goes into effect at midnight and I see the direction things are headed and I’m not too thrilled being a young and relatively new gun owner.


PhillipJCoulson

So many lawsuits coming


SamDaManIAm69

15 hours? Yikes.


RonaKid

Wasn't one of the reasons for right to bare arms given to overthrow a tyrannical government, well.... Maybe it's time.


According-Egg8234

Good. Let's hope more states follow suit.


securitysix

Do you realize what subreddit you're in?


According-Egg8234

I do. But I just comment on shit that pops up on the front page. I'm allowed to have an opinion, right?


securitysix

Of course, you're allowed to have an opinion. Just don't be surprised if your opinion is extremely unpopular.


EEBoi

The whole point of conceal carry is that no one knows so you don't become the first target. By actively labeling your business as allowing conceal carry now your store and the people in it are prime targets


Prolifik206

To stay away from…