NY's Vindictive Plans for carry - special session next week to respond to SCOTUS's ruling. (Merged)
- Thread starter Cavalry
- Start date
Maybe, but it is vague and the lawmaker that was on the radio was outlining some of this. Somewhere, someone will need to clarify what areas can be sensitive, or else they all will be as they are trying to do now. Actually I should say as they have done now because the law has been passed.
GTN
.308 Win
That in NY they are probably illegal
so... the SC said that specific areas were considered "sensitive" back when the 2A was ratified.
Is there any supporting historical documents that show that courthouses, government buildings, schools, etc., were off limits to guns in the late 1700s?
I find it hard to believe that a governing body, with the intent to resist and eject an occupying force, would willingly disarm themselves to meet up.
Pitchforks and torches are completely legal in and of themselves.
It is only when they are possessed at the same time that they become illegal. And if you have a bucket of tar at the same time you have the pitchfork and torch then you are guilty of possessing assault weapons of war.
I'm sure they didn't allow persons that were charged with crimes to carry arms before the magistrate.
Maybe it wasn't and the opinion even stated sensitive places was not the case before the court at this time “¯\_(ツ)_/¯“
Then I guess the law will stand as written. Thank you. I can now sell my pistols as they can not legally be carried virtually anywhere after September 1st, and are sub-par for home protection.
Yes, but that is a very specific situation. There are numerous reasons to go before a magistrate that doesn't involve you being arrested and charged with a crime.
Was there a blanket "no arms allowed" in the courtroom other than law enforcement?
Maybe, if so you probably just threw your pistols in a bin out front and retrieved it when you left. I saw something to that effect on a show I watched once. Who knows if its accurate though.
Go for it, doesn't bother me any what you do with your property “¯\_(ツ)_/¯“
I was being facetious. I think the state legislator that was being interviewed on a radio program probably has a better grasp of the situation than some random guy on the internet that likes to post goof ball stuff when others are trying to have a serious adult conversation.
Not enforceable by any means.
I wouldn't call your posts "goofball"
Explain. I thought the new law made it a felony to carry in a restricted place.
Oh look, another joke. Who could have seen that coming? Im here to have serious discussion on this specific topic. Not slap stick comedic attempts. Sorry.
Show me on the doll where the internet hurt you.... lmfao,
BuT mUh RaDiO sAiD
Seems as sensitive areas were indeed discussed in this case, despite what the resident comedian has claimed.
Justice Alito, who posed the following question to petitioners’ counsel at oral argument:
So starting with that, could we analyze the sensitive place question by asking whether this is a place where the state has taken alternative means to safeguard those who frequent that place? If it’s a—if it’s a place like a courthouse, for example, a government building, where everybody has to go through a magnetometer and there are security officials there, that would qualify as a sensitive place. Now that doesn’t provide a mechanical answer to every question, and—but it—would that be a way of analyzing—of beginning to analyze this?
Justice Alito, who posed the following question to petitioners’ counsel at oral argument:
So starting with that, could we analyze the sensitive place question by asking whether this is a place where the state has taken alternative means to safeguard those who frequent that place? If it’s a—if it’s a place like a courthouse, for example, a government building, where everybody has to go through a magnetometer and there are security officials there, that would qualify as a sensitive place. Now that doesn’t provide a mechanical answer to every question, and—but it—would that be a way of analyzing—of beginning to analyze this?
Bad news for us. Lots of history of gun bans and sensitive areas.
Starting at the beginning, laws in ancient Athens, which influenced both English and Founding Era American thought, broadly prohibited weapons-carrying in populous urban areas.
I. The Historical Scope of the Sensitive Places Doctrine
Historically, the sensitive places doctrine has gone well beyond the narrow category suggested by Justice Alito’s question and advocated by Halbrook.10Starting at the beginning, laws in ancient Athens, which influenced both English and Founding Era American thought, broadly prohibited weapons-carrying in populous urban areas.
4WHLDRFTN
.308 Win
Ut oh,, think this thread turned into a sensitive place
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Civil juries? Really
Their immunity isn’t qualified immunity. It’s immunity—no qualifiers involved— from voting on a law.
Please name ANY example of a successful lawsuit.
You can’t sue the government unless the government has set up a mechanism/permission to do so. It’s why EEO policies, insider trading regulations didn’t apply to members of Congress.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
The answer is yes to those questions. At one time the bailiff could be armed in the courtroom but the sheriff etc could not for example. Armed in church was a no no in some places.
Schools? I don’t know of any examples of the top of my head in the 1700s but public education wasn’t common then
NYSRPA v. Bruen and the Future of the Sensitive Places Doctrine - Boston College Law Review - Boston College
This really explains a lot of the historical sensitive places.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
While it gives some historical examples, it has a fundamental problem in its analysis. It’s basing it on Alitio rather than Thomas and Kavanaugh’s opinions.
The good news is that the sensitive areas in the new law are “new”, They weren’t and CCW was allowed in some capacity
Got to read the whole opinion and understand how little wiggle room Thomas gives... but I guess the opinion isn't some dude on the radio
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
The problem is how it interacts with Kavanaugh’s concurrent opinion with Alitio’s. . Read Kavanaugh’s.
Problem is, the NY lawmakers also read the Thomas decision and in their opinion the new carry restrictions are in line with it. Thus why it will need to go back to SCOTUS to define what is and is not allowed, specifically. Otherwise you're just getting other peoples views on what the decision actually means. Just as the legislator on the radio program suggested. See, now we have come full circle right back to where the discussion began. Whew!