NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision

Apeman

Apeman

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
3,933
Location
Saratoga
ManualF150 said:
They may or may not announce it. I can say that Mr. Sullivan was nice enough to state what his county is going to do.

Next question is... how many people are going to go to the PP office and get a new card with no restrictions printed on it?
Click to expand...
I don't see the point in getting a new card. They charge you for it. EVERYONE knows about the ruling. There were no laws against carrying on a restricted permit before anyway. The only risk was pissing off the judge if you did something wrong and he could suspend it. The restrictions are just meaningless words printed on it
 
M

ManualF150

.308 Win
Messages
4,836
Reaction score
8,830
Location
Cayuga
Apeman said:
I don't see the point in getting a new card. They charge you for it. EVERYONE knows about the ruling. There were no laws against carrying on a restricted permit before anyway. The only risk was pissing off the judge if you did something wrong and he could suspend it. The restrictions are just meaningless words printed on it
Click to expand...
Here's the thing, yes we know it means nothing on the card now. However a cop might think different if they don't understand.

I've also asked a few other folks today, and they have no idea what this ruling actually means OR that it even happened yesterday. So I can vouch for that everyone doesn't know about it -- yet.

As with anything, it takes time for things to trickle down to people that don't pay attention to the news or don't pay much attention to the gun world.

Heck, I'm even the type of person that I like certain things in black and white. Even if I did have to pay for it to avoid problems.
 
Darth

Darth

Bunny In Chief
Messages
19,534
Reaction score
24,712
Location
MoCo
ManualF150 said:
Here's the thing, yes we know it means nothing on the card now. However a cop might think different if they don't understand.

I've also asked a few other folks today, and they have no idea what this ruling actually means OR that it even happened yesterday. So I can vouch for that everyone doesn't know about it -- yet.

As with anything, it takes time for things to trickle down to people that don't pay attention to the news or don't pay much attention to the gun world.

Heck, I'm even the type of person that I like certain things in black and white. Even if I did have to pay for it to avoid problems.
Click to expand...
Can you provide an example where you would have a cop not only examining your license, but beyond that questioning restrictions and further attempting to escalate this?

Do you have an example that doesn't start with "I know a guy..."
 
Jchrisls

Jchrisls

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,678
Reaction score
2,718
Location
Incognito
Darth said:
Can you provide an example where you would have a cop not only examining your license, but beyond that questioning restrictions and further attempting to escalate this?

Do you have an example that doesn't start with "I know a guy..."
Click to expand...
I personally have never heard of or encountered anyone who has had this happen. Could it be due to people simply being in fear of losing their permit therefore not challenging the restrictions? Plausible.
 
SomeSoldier

SomeSoldier

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
20,205
Location
Florida
Zerex said:
43 states currently have shall issue CC laws.................soon 6 more will join them.

Mag laws, Safe Act, will have to wait until the new semi auto Hochul law is declared unconstitutional.
Cathy hates the fixed mag, full featured AR15's.
Click to expand...

Why bother, go for the full montey.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,905
Reaction score
38,466
Location
Livingston
Zerex said:
Will the two guys who filed the original lawsuit, to get their "hunting, target"hiking, camping" restrictions from their permits lifted, ultimately have them lifted......like today, by the local Judge?

I sincerely doubt it.

In any case, no matter what Hochul does in the meanwhile, the case was remanded back to the lower Fed Court, for implementation of the SCOTUS decision.
That means the Court will allow..... go to gunshop, buy pistol for home, pass NICS and go home with pistol...Legislature will likely have to pass such a law....................EVENTUALLY

Concealed Carry Permits, will be "shall issue"------- without restrictions like hunting camping, target, hiking. Court will allow restrictions/requirements, like NRA CC training course, f-prints, NICS, Mental, and usual county DELAYS for obtaining a permit.

Question is of course, will us current NYS Permit Holders, have our restrictions lifted automatically, so we can carry........ or do we have to re-apply? I just renewed by PP for the next 5 years.

The Semi Auto rifle law Hochul passed, is almost exactly the same as the PP law, that was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS...AOW law too....maybe even Ghost Gun law.

I can see why Cathy Torquemadae is going insane...a person who buys a gun for the home without a permit, EVENTUALLY,.......... might carry that gun anyway.
Click to expand...

the Court said the 2nd is no different then the 1st ..

so do you need a permit to speak ?

a permit to go to a church .. ?

a permit for free press ?

do you have to pay for them too and get trained .. to use your 1st ?
 
Last edited:
gun_slinger_boy

gun_slinger_boy

.338 Win Mag
Messages
5,483
Reaction score
7,254
Location
Pennsyltucky
Edwardteach72 said:
Click to expand...
Saw this video last night. He did a very good job explaining things. And once again I'll say. This is huge. In a previous post I described it as a chink in the armor. I'm upgrading that to a crack in a dam. The importance of proving historical precedence cannot be over stated. Smashing the Sullivan act (1911) into pieces is what this all did. It was enacted over 100 years ago. There is no way it can be argued that the NFA (1934) or gun control act (1968) are historical precedence considering they are even newer than the Sullivan Act. Dominoes are gonna fall one by one.
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,052
Location
New York
gun_slinger_boy said:
Saw this video last night. He did a very good job explaining things. And once again I'll say. This is huge. In a previous post I described it as a chink in the armor. I'm upgrading that to a crack in a dam. The importance of proving historical precedence cannot be over stated. Smashing the Sullivan act (1911) into pieces is what this all did. It was enacted over 100 years ago. There is no way it can be argued that the NFA (1934) or gun control act (1968) are historical precedence considering they are even newer than the Sullivan Act. Dominoes are gonna fall one by one.
Click to expand...

This one just uploaded, but yes
 
Uninformed and Compliant

Uninformed and Compliant

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
12,893
Reaction score
48,260
Location
CNY
Deplorable Me said:
So Hochul has declared that NY will be a safe haven state to honor abortion rights so women can get services here. Can Texas declare themselves a safe haven state for NYs being denied 2A rights here?
Click to expand...
Those cunts wanted their vaginas to be regulated just like guns, so,

First things first. Any shitbag from out-of-state CANNOT get an abortion in another state, unless it is legal to do so in their home state.

Fair's fair.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,905
Reaction score
38,466
Location
Livingston
gun_slinger_boy said:
Saw this video last night. He did a very good job explaining things. And once again I'll say. This is huge. In a previous post I described it as a chink in the armor. I'm upgrading that to a crack in a dam. The importance of proving historical precedence cannot be over stated. Smashing the Sullivan act (1911) into pieces is what this all did. It was enacted over 100 years ago. There is no way it can be argued that the NFA (1934) or gun control act (1968) are historical precedence considering they are even newer than the Sullivan Act. Dominoes are gonna fall one by one.
Click to expand...

the vid i posted above a bit a go .. #1457 ... he brings up the sullivan act .. .. history lesson ..
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,052
Location
New York
gun_slinger_boy said:
Saw this video last night. He did a very good job explaining things. And once again I'll say. This is huge. In a previous post I described it as a chink in the armor. I'm upgrading that to a crack in a dam. The importance of proving historical precedence cannot be over stated. Smashing the Sullivan act (1911) into pieces is what this all did. It was enacted over 100 years ago. There is no way it can be argued that the NFA (1934) or gun control act (1968) are historical precedence considering they are even newer than the Sullivan Act. Dominoes are gonna fall one by one.
Click to expand...

This is why I also mentioned in other posts I've made and said similar to you, this case was small potatoes, but it was an absolute amazing vessel to get others tossed out.

Think about it.. the justices who decided this is the one we want to hear had to have a small ides that there is very little history and evidence of regulating the carry of handguns outside of the home... what better small potatoes starting point to drop the opinion they did knowing full well it was going to do the work for them on othe regulations
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,052
Location
New York
gun_slinger_boy said:
Ah yes. The thumbnail looked like the two from yesterday. Now looking at his videos it looks like he uses Thomas thumbnails quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Yea I hate how lazy he's kind of gotten with his thumbnails. But also it's pretty much saying what you are saying. It's good shit
 
gun_slinger_boy

gun_slinger_boy

.338 Win Mag
Messages
5,483
Reaction score
7,254
Location
Pennsyltucky
Edwardteach72 said:
Think about it.. the justices who decided this is the one we want to hear had to have a small ides that there is very little history and evidence of regulating the carry of handguns outside of the home... what better small potatoes starting point to drop the opinion they did knowing full well it was going to do the work for them on othe regulations
Click to expand...
I hadn't even considered that. They were/are definitely playing chess then.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,905
Reaction score
38,466
Location
Livingston
BuffNiag said:
Well this is interesting. How do you make more laws when you just got bitch slapped by SCOTUS?


Click to expand...

then i need a 20 person fully armed bodyguard team to keep me safe at all times .. payed for by the Governor her self .. everyone should do this ..
 
Apeman

Apeman

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
3,933
Location
Saratoga
This is from channel 10 news

Many times judges won’t look past 10,” explains Sheriff Apple about some of the qualifications, “so again, the judge could look at those qualities and look at your character and say, ‘I would have given you this and restricted it but now I don’t think I’m gonna.”

I'm guessing he's not speaking for the judge. If the judge uses that logic I see a lot of lawsuits against albany county
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top