T O P
Stuewe

Nullifies? I doubt it. More like drags it's feet as it's pulled towards freedom. Most of these new restrictions won't stand up to the new standard that the SCOTUS just set for review of 2A cases. It will, however, take some time to get lawsuits against these new laws.


GeriatricTuna

FPC's lawsuit printer already went brrrrr


herscheldb

Reload and crank that bitch up to brrrbrrr


HappyHurtzlickn

Seriously, I think I'm gonna start donating to them. No joke.


Lasereye

Do it. NYSRPA and GOA too. Fuck the NRA.


ChuckJA

Not as much time as you'd think. There is such a flagrant violation of a clearly articulated decision that the lowest level of federal court will be forced to strike. We are talking a couple of months, tops.


SandyBouattick

Honestly, at this point, I would prefer that it return to the SCOTUS. The lower courts absolutely SHOULD follow Bruen and apply the law to strike at least 90% of this new NY law, but they have a history of finding ways to avoid following the constitution when they don't like the outcome. If the district court handles this the right way, that's good for that circuit, but we might see more bullshit in other parts of the country. The best outcome would be for this to get back to the SCOTUS while they are in the mood to give the 2A some respect and while they are angry at NY for flagrantly ignoring Bruen. Then we would get another decision making it very clear that this kind of bullshit will not stand, and it will apply to the entire US, rather than waiting another decade or so for more clarification when the SCOTUS might not be this 2A-friendly if the court composition changes. Basically, I want as many strikes as we can get while the iron is hot.


youcantseeme0_0

If President Cornpop had any integrity and respect for his oath of office, he would send in federal law enforcement to NY to make arrests for blatantly violating the SCOTUS ruling. The governor needs to be frogmarched in handcuffs for signing this crap into law.


Lonerider3939

Only the police will have guns? Least we forget the gang members and the rest of the Bad Guys in this country will have illegal guns. So make victims out Law abiding citizens by disarming them. This is just another insane idea. Like so many other insane ideas sponsored Liberal Screwballs. Another example is their reckless and lawless open borders. Another is Shutting down the oil industry which is the epicenter of the high cost of living and the crises every American Family is suffering from. The Democrat Party belongs in South America not here.


raz-0

I highly suspect the shill courts in ny and nj will treat text, history, and tradition along the lines of “well there were some restrictions, so restrictions existed, so every restriction is supported by history and tradition”.


redbear762

Well, considering the recent ruling I’d say a SCOTUS hard slap could come down without an actual case.


tcp1

Unfortunately not how it works.


redbear762

SCOTUS has issued Emergency Injunctions before and this is a clear violation that merits one. Now we need FPC and GOA to file Emergency Applications for relief.


Divenity

They can also hold people in contempt for refusing to follow rulings.


chattytrout

Practically speaking, what does that actually do? Would that put the NY governor in jail? Or is it just a strongly worded letter to the state?


solaris7711

Question: could you hold a judge in contempt of a higher court, if that judge knowingly (legally, known or should have known) ignored SCOTUS's rulings and upheld a clearly disallowed law? E.g. - the judge ignored the Bruen statement that the balancing test of means-end scrutiny is not appropriate/not allowed


shortalay

From what I gathered, if held in contempt the Marshals are the ones who are supposed to go and arrest you, or the army is sent to do something, however, all these require the Executive Branch to actually enforce the ruling which won’t happen with Biden in Office.


GeriatricTuna

FPC already filed.


redbear762

With SCOTUS? I’m aware of the NYAG


EarthseedEquipment

NYAG Letitia James is either an idiot or malicious, she sent cease and desist letters to polymer 80 vendors years ago saying they were illegal before they were illegal in NY. Her response to Bruen was to announce actions against ghost guns before making any statements or guidance in response to Bruen. I would not expect any sort of reasonable response or compliance from her.


GeriatricTuna

She is the literal definition of a tyrant.


tcp1

True, but the current court seems awfully reticent to even grant cert, nevermind issue injunctions. We’re a bit lucky things got this far at all IMHO with the current court. Not that I wouldn’t like to see one. I just would be surprised.


redbear762

Let’s see what FPC and GOA do; it is my understanding that both orgs have filed briefs with the NY State Attorney General.


entertrainer7

The court was reticent before because Roberts is a cuck. They don’t need him anymore so I suspect we’ll see a lot more cases. There are always like 3-ish first amendment cases each term, it would be great to have one per term for now and work up to that first amendment range.


JustynS

I fully predict this is going to go down *exactly* like how Democrats just kept doing everything they possibly could to ignore Brown v. Board of Education and other court decisions that broke apart segregation. Just finding any possible excuse to enact minimum changes to their oppressive laws so that every change needed to be a full battle through the courts.


BillyBushwoodBaroo

Agree, and they have an unlimited budget to keep doing so, while the only thing funding the lawsuits against thier tyrannical actions is those of us who care enough to kick in a few bucks.


PotentialQuail3439

I disagree. They’ve done all but say explicitly that its nullified. The ruling clearly said objective criteria only and only narrow historically prohibited places. NY has blatantly disregarded these parts.


BeefKnee321

Unfortunately what I believe we may end up seeing some convoluted test much like what stemmed from *Casey*, like an “undue burden” analysis. I haven’t read this recent 2A holding from SCOTUS, but other than the 1A implications of NY’s new legislation I think it would pass that test.


tcp1

It likely would. But the 1A implications and the arbitrariness of that portion torpedoes it. The government cannot use a subjective interpretation of protected speech to enable another right. The rest is likely legit as long as everyone who jumps through the hoops is actually approved using a single equitable rubric. The “social media speech investigation” portion doesn’t have a chance in hell though, IMHO. It’s literally what would be called “abhorrent” to the 1st amendment. Compelling disclosure of protected speech is also a major sticky wicket that should be able to be tested quickly. Someone disabling their social media a day before applying for a permit should be fully protected. (In reality, refusing to disclose accounts should be too.) My Facebook is family only. Would that have an implication? Would you be required to add the NYPD as a friend? I can’t imagine something like that would survive any challenge.


BeefKnee321

Yeah, I agree. It is exactly the 1A portion that makes this flatly unconstitutional. It for certain has the effect of chillin free speech, there’s just no way around that. Unfortunately I don’t think we’d get a ruling on that issue; I think if this goes up on direct review the Court will do exactly what it did with the *Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn* case. Chief Justice Roberts will opine that the issue is moot (presumably NY will get smart and not utilize that part of their legislation), and it will be dismissed. Textbook “capable of repetition yet evading review.”


LostInMyADD

Id also argue that these social media sites would have to clearly state whether they are private or public services in order for this to hold. Which if they have to delineate that aspect would have very specific advantages and disadvantages in terms of out comes on taxes and legislation applying to them. Currently, they pretty much claim both, and get the advantages of both sides of public and private. Which also makes me ask, what if all my social media is set to private? Also, how are they defining social media? Wouldn't they also have to define objectively make shows good moral character or not?


globosingentes

I’m not sure it would pass the test since it essentially requires you to forfeit one (more than one, actually) constitutional right in order to exercise another.


tcp1

It may just be a “ask for 110% and settle for 90%” approach - as in, they’re bluffing. They should know the social media portion can’t stand, so they’ll offer to remove that as “compromise” and they still get what they came here for. Either way I’m hoping this gets interesting fast.


BeefKnee321

Yeah, tracking. Aside from that, I see some convoluted test arising out of this much like what we’ve seen in the past.


Stuewe

Justice Thomas spelled out in black and white what the acceptable test is in 2A cases going forward. It is the more important part of the Bruen decision.


BeefKnee321

I haven’t read *Bruen* yet, so I’ll have to take a look. Hopefully it isn’t just a concurrence.


Stuewe

No, Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion. Give it a look when you get a chance. He's pretty clear.


BeefKnee321

Been busy with bar exam stuff, so haven’t been up on current stuff. I’ll give it a gloss.


Stuewe

Understandable, good luck with the bar.


BeefKnee321

Thanks. I’m steadily losing my mind.


vkbrian

So instead of just violating one Constitutional right, Hochul wants to violate four. Fuck that power-hungry cunt.


PirateKilt

At what point does the SCOTUS send Federal Marshalls to arrest someone violating their decisions?


Thorbinator

Well Jackson and the trail of tears comes to mind. So, never?


ExtraGreenBox

Trail of tears was van Buren


Thorbinator

Ah, correct. I looked it up again, Jackson was in office when 1830 the court decision was made, by legend said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." but the actual Cherokee forced march was in 1838.


Prowindowlicker

SCOTUS can’t do that. But the president can, unfortunately ice cream brains isn’t gonna do shit


vkbrian

If we had nine Clarence Thomases it would probably already be happening


TheKelt

The “social media” requirement is as ludicrous as the “jelly bean test” of yore. Utterly disgraceful.


tcp1

The social media part is absolutely unconstitutional and will trigger a challenge. They’re basically saying the government can arbitrarily gate the second amendment through an arbitrary judgement of speech protected by the first. This is like saying you have to get government approval by combing through your library receipts before you vote. It’s even more egregious than before. NY absolutely thinks the constitution is optional. You are fully in your right to put “N/A” on a government application that is requiring scrutiny of protected speech. This is *exactly* why the 1st amendment exists. Amazing. Liberals will burn down buildings to protect abortion which is not remotely referenced in the constitution, but have no problem throwing a 1st amendment violation on to a 2nd amendment one that literally just got ruled unconstitutional. At least the honest ones say they want to delete the whole constitution and start over.


LeftismIsStatism

New York seems to believe that since they’ve removed the words “special need” from the CCW law that it’s now 100% fully constitutional. The social media part is a subjective judgement, also unconstitutional under Bruen. This will be challenged, and New York will lose. All they’re doing is prolonging the inevitable at this point.


merc08

> All they’re doing is prolonging the inevitable at this point. No, they're intentionally delaying and trying to create a narrative of "the supreme court needs an overhaul" so they can push for adding justice seats, stacking the court in their favor, getting Bruen overturned, and this crap approved.


leedle1234

> since they’ve removed the words “special need” from the CCW law They haven't even done that, this law with all the social media and sensitive places stuff removes special need, but goes into effect Sept 1st, in the mean time all the permit offices are still enforcing it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


tcp1

Good for you. This is what we need. I’m not in NY, but I plan on applying for a NJ non-resident permit (I’m a former resident), which is apparently allowed.


mctoasterson

If I get some spare time I'm going to throw together a web map application that shows color-coded polygons of all the places you won't be able to carry in NYC. It is essentially like them saying the whole city is a "sensitive place" in patchwork fashion. You will always be within a few steps of one of the areas listed.


NickMotionless

Pretty much. They're trying to restrict it to being able to carry nowhere. That's their goal. I don't know why they didn't just create a law that says "You can't carry anywhere in the state, as it is protected property of the state government" and call it a fucking day. Why all the useless language? It has nothing to do with protecting anyone, it only has to do with preventing carry in as many places as legally possible without the hope of a legitimate challenger for a very long time.


[deleted]

Sorry Hochul, that's not how this works.


Knightmare_71

They keep fucking around and scotus will just get rid of permitting all together


zaca21

>They keep fucking around and scotus will just get rid of permitting all together Which they should have just done anyways.


NickMotionless

Agreed. Bruen should have been the last nail in the coffin. They should have stated in the opinion that any sort of restriction on carrying a firearm is unconstitutional except where barred by private property owners. If someone doesn't want me carrying and they tell me to leave, sure thing bud, whatever. When the government gives me an approved list of places I can go, they can fuck right off.


Mr_E_Monkey

Agreed, they should have. I think they might have taken this route knowing that some tyrant like Hochul would pull something like this, so they can say "we tried to give you something, but you couldn't even handle that."


securitywyrm

Gotta give them enough rope to hang themselves with.


TaskForceD00mer

New York: "You Can't have a Carry Permit Pleb! SCOTUS: "Yeah, about that, shall not be infringed" New York: "I AM THE LAW"


Imaginary_Voices

Permits were denied to rape victims and stalking victims -and then they were later attacked


BimmerMan87

Sounds about right.


pyr0phelia

“Must turn over social media accounts to determine good moral character”. Ok, let’s play with this one out. I don’t have any social media accounts besides Reddit so would I be automatically denied? What about accounts created without my knowledge but are found during the investigation? I know for a fact I have a Facebook account my wife created and manages on my behalf because I refuse to use it but she wants my presence there for family. Sure that example may be harmless but i honestly don’t know anything about it, what had been said on my behalf, or even the password so how would I respond? What about accounts that are created intentionally to mock or mislead banned users and can’t appeal said accounts use? Everything about this request is wildly unacceptable.


ksoltis

Agreed. Someone got into my Facebook account a couple years ago, there was no way for me to get it back, and no way to contact Facebook to get it taken down. For all I know there's a person masquerading as me out there saying who knows what.


tiggers97

The dominoes are setup. The SCOTUS decision was the last one. Now we are in the process of drawing in the breath that will blow the first one down. Hopefully causing a cascading effect across the country.


grahampositive

The clear language about the standard by which to judge these cases was absolutely as you describe it -the last domino to set up. Look at how far this country has come down the gun control rabbit hole since the 1930's. in 100 years we've gone from mail-order full autos to purchase permits that have social media checks. The pendulum seems to have swung as far as it can go (as evidenced by most folks preparing to wholly disregard any ATF brace classification next month) and it's about to swing the other direction. The second domino to fall will be no less crucial - those are the cases about mag restrictions that were remanded to lower courts. How the rule on those cases in the 3rd and 9th circuits will either continue the momentum, or disrupt it. IMO a ruling in favor of the sate on a mag ban would eventually be overturned at SCOTUS, but it would have a severe undermining effect on the rule of law and the legitimacy of the court. I am afraid that if, for example, the 3rd circuit plays games with how they interpret Heller/Bruen and continues to break their backs bending over backwards to justify unconstitutional restrictions, it could push us toward a constitutional crisis. It's precarious enough on just the guns issue, but with all the other rulings coming out of the court, there is a significant public backlash and certain politicians (AOC for example) are openly and publicly delegitimizing the court. Many are openly calling for investigations and impeachment for Thomas, as well as ending the filibuster and packing the court. This could have really disastrous consequences for our democracy. I don't think folks realize how close we are to a cliff here, and they're shouting to push us closer to the precipice. It's as if those on the left have suddenly forgotten how democracy works. They don't like the rulings so they want to fundamentally change the way our 3-branch system works? Upset a balance that was struck over 230 years ago? If I were a political cartoonist I'd draw a 3 legged stool with progressive congresspeople actively sawing at one of the legs. If you don't like the laws, vote to change them! If you don't like the constitution, you can change that too (though I dare you to try!). Attacking the court is only ramping up the fervor in a country that is struggling with plenty of other things already (inflation! our nuclear adversary is engaged in a hot war in Europe! Wage price spiral! Manufacturing shortages! Climate change!) Kinda looking like we're a little fucked right now tbh.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NickMotionless

The difference now is that it's not north/south, it's conservative Americans VS liberal Americans. One side wants shit to be left alone and the other is all for shredding every fucking last piece of freedom and stomping it into the dirt if it means less responsibility/more security.


Dopplegangster69

Which side is which?


dturtleman150

The ‘liberal’ Americans are the ones baying for MOAR FREE SHITZ, and SAFETY UBER ALLES.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gooble211

Back in the 1960s, consent decrees were used to stop states and local governments from playing games like this to indefinitely drag out full compliance with civil rights laws. Pass a bad law? Instant smackdown. Such a consent decree is needed again.


ZheeDog

Excellent idea!


pyratemime

It is a good idea with one terminal flaw, where are you going to find an honest body to enforce those decrees? DoJ clearly won't. Second Circuit more than likely won't. So then who short of SCOTUS who is not going to take that role on. I love the idea. I really do. Its just that enforcement is gonna be a bitch.


Gooble211

I saw that flaw and I figured it's worth a shot. At least then when Joe is out of office and the Republicans are back in control, DOJ enforcement agents can be threatened with dismissal and more if they don't enforce said consent decree. Stack up multiple lines of offense and defense.


nofishontuesday2

It truly amazes me the stupidity on the left how they feel the gun itself is at fault.


BillyClubxxx

This is why I have no social media other than Reddit. It’s going to become a window into everyone’s life that they think they have the right to read and see what we think and that is a huge deal opening up scrutiny that if they want to they can find issue with every single person.


BeefKnee321

Not a big fan of the language The Federalist uses (media bias is media bias), but the legislation certainly does appear concerning. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw some sort of preliminary injunction as seen in *Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo*. Of course, just as in that case, I imagine it would go very similarly and we wouldn’t see a ruling on the issues.


NickMotionless

(a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts; (b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependence care or services; (c) any place of worship or religious observation; (d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos; (e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to operate such program has been issued by the department of health and mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York; (f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps; (g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities; (h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports; (i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health; (j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance; (k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence; (l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health; (m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools; (n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals; (o) any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption; (p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission; (q) any location being used as a polling place; (r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage; (s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble; (t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage. SO FUCKING NOWHERE? How is it legal for New York to do this baby back bullshit? You basically can carry in your car and in your house. This is fucking asinine. While they won't restrict people from getting carry permits, they sure as hell restrict the ability to carry anywhere except for private property THAT ISN'T leased by the government or a public are that's being used for a private event. That shit is just stupid. New York and California are on some really strong shit. Like sure, this may be able to be challenged up to the supreme court AGAIN, but Jesus Christ it's going to take YEARS of litigation to get this shit to a normal level. The fact that they basically banned carry everywhere at the stroke of a pen is just laughable. Conservative New Yorkers need to move elsewhere to let these liberals rot. They shouldn't be giving any tax dollars to this shithole of a state and they should lose congressional seats for this garbage.


Mr_E_Monkey

> How is it legal for New York to do this baby back bullshit? It's not. It clearly violates the ruling from *Bruen,* but they are determined to push as much as they can for as long as they can, until they are compelled to abide by the ruling.


ByronicAsian

> THAT ISN'T leased by the government or a public are that's being used for a private event. That shit is just stupid. Not exactly, the following subdivision makes all private property gun-free by default, and they must post conspicious signs allowing CCW for those carrying to enter.


ZheeDog

Time to vote with your feet...


panxerox

All bruen really does is give a very powerful weapon to use in the lower courts to defend 2nd am rights. So in other words a bonanza for lawyers


darthcoder

If only these politicians had to personally pay for the damages their legal shenanigans cause.


UPSMAN68

I’d love for SCOTUS to take it out of their hands. Nationwide Constitutional carry.


FunDip2

These kind of decisions come from the same people that give out the addresses of Supreme Court Justices while knowing that these justices and their children have had death threats. AND....these same cowards get defensive when the Supreme Court justices, that have had the death threats, ask that they have security around their homes because of the nonstop protests from unknown individuals with unknown criminal records. Yeah, F this bitch.


jtg1997

So a real question here, can New York just keep making new laws as the last one is shot down? Because that sounds like a big no no.


Butters_Gaming

As long as NYS keeps voting these people in yeah they will continue to do just that unfortunately


NickMotionless

Conservative New Yorkers are leaving in droves and it's only a matter of time until there's no safe place left. NY is slowly becoming CA 2.0 and there will be unstoppable crime, drugs and all sorts of bullshit for years to come.


Butters_Gaming

Yeah you’re not wrong at all. I’ve seen, in the last two years especially, leaving for Florida and Tennessee specifically and I’m not far behind them. I live in Northern New York, kind of in the sticks and unfortunately, like most states, the cities are what dictate the rest of the state like the city and it doesn’t work. Your absolutely right that it’s quickly becoming cali 2.0 if not worse with the wicked witch of the east.


NickMotionless

Yep. What sucks is that upstate and rural New York is just like Appalachia, it's a beautiful with great people but NYC ruins the state.


Asmewithoutpolitics

It’s simple the Supreme Court needs to keep knocking these down…. And then the appellate courts will fall in line. Then the district courts. So eventually these new laws will be struck down within months of going into affect.


calcutta250_1

It’s like NY is run by criminals. Criminals don’t obey the law, and NY isn’t obeying the lawful rulings by the SCOTUS.


Futuredanish

So what will happen to the states that just flat out denies or refuses to follow supreme court rulings? Governors get arrested by feds?


EpicGuard

Trying to remember any historical examples of states deciding to ignore supreme court decisions. The future looks grim.


ZheeDog

NY won't relent until they see what happens in November. If R's take back the House and Senate, NY will settle one of the upcoming lawsuits and pull back on this, that's my guess.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BigMooseIsLoose

Politicians don't fear the people anymore. Been a while since they were dragged out into the streets for some well deserved mob justice.


zaca21

So, from what i'm seeing, its not a felony to carry a pistol in any place that hasn't explicitly allowed them... Whats the point in even getting a permit in the first place then???? Just carry illegally at that point.


tcp1

What are you talking about? In NY, carrying a concealed firearm without a permit absolutely is a felony. https://www.martinkanelaw.com/criminal-defense/gun-arrests-at-airport/what-are-the-possession-of-firearm-laws-in-the-state-of-new-york/ You might be forgetting about what the SAFE act did. “ In New York, even the possession of an unloaded operable handgun is a felony charge. Until about 3 years ago, possession of an unloaded, operable handgun was a misdemeanor. The continuing uproar over gun violence resulted in it being upgraded to a felony. Loaded handguns are extremely serious charges and are classified as violent felony offenses. Possession of a loaded handgun in New York has a minimum sentence of 3.5 years in prison.” Non-compliance is a dangerous game in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.


Downtown-Incident-21

Just move out that shithole commie state. I did...after 56 years. I had enough. When will you?


tcp1

The “move out” argument helps nothing. It just enables them. To protect rights people need to stay and stand and fight - unless you want everyone who believes in rights to be forced to be huddled in a single county in the Texas panhandle in 20 years. What if Dick Heller had just moved to Virginia? You need to look at the bigger picture.


Downtown-Incident-21

You REALLY think you/us will flip NY? Not a snowballs chance in hell. The NYS legislature will bog this down forever and your/our hopes of NY ever being a free state. Its nice to dream. But reality tells me otherwise. Which is why I moved. I Carry daily...need no ones permission or have to justify my cause or turn over emails and social media accts. Politicians in NYS are all fakes. Good luck with your fight.


tcp1

Nobody’s talking about flipping. Bruen wouldn’t have happened if NYSRPA hadn’t stood firm and fought back. Who do you think makes up NYSRPA and its members?


Downtown-Incident-21

Not me anymore...was a member there over 25 years. Tired of losing rights and nothing happening. Keep dreaming and good luck. NYS will ALWAYS be blue.


dontcomment33

No states rights for New York?


FilthyKallahan

Not when it clearly violates the Constitution and the Supreme Court decision, especially since that's the entire point of the Supreme Court, to make sure that states follow the Constitution. The Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't just lay out what our natural rights are, they also lay out what the Government CANNOT do. The Government, that includes states, have very restricted rights, since a corrupt Government is the entire reason for the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Rloader

I read all this fast while at work did I miss the part on background checks on ammo is that still a thing ?


mohamedsmithlee

They mentioned almost the whole state on the list where you can’t carry and gave every nut job a list of targets


Mephfosail

NY just passed constitutional carry and they did it by restricting everything, scotus will strike this nonsense down too