Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: SCOTUS strikes down anti carry NY gun law

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Today: States are not free to enact such gun control laws. They violate the 14th Amendment.

    Tomorrow(?): States are free to enact such abortion laws. They do not violate the 14th Amendment.

    I just wish we had actual federalism. If New Yorkers want these laws, more power to them.
    You mean they violate the Second Amendment.

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    "Law abiding".

    Bitch, most laws are unconstitutional.

  4. #63
    I'm from New Jersey, bought my first guns there and it was the injustices associated that prompted me into a lifetime of political hellraising.

    Line 3 in the NJ concealed carry permit requirement is the single reason why nobody outside of the wealthy or politically connected could obtain a permit to carry.

    I tried multiple times.

    It was the repealing of a similar law in Florida that resulted in the "Shall Issue" permit system in Florida that then swept across the nation, followed by Constitutional Carry.

    This ruling is almost 40 years behind the curve, but still overall a great victory.
    NJ Drops ‘Justifiable Need’ Requirement for Concealed Carry Following SCOTUS 2A Ruling

    AWR HAWKINS 24 Jun 2022

    New Jersey’s acting Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a June 24, 2022, directive to “All Law Enforcement Chief Executives and County Prosecutors.”

    Platkin’s directive is titled, “Directive Clarifying Requirements for Carrying of Firearms in Public.”

    The directive says:

    Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that impacts New Jersey’s permitting law but does not eliminate our overall permitting requirements. Under current New Jersey law, an individual can obtain a carry permit only if they can demonstrate to the reviewing officer that the applicant satisfies mandatory statutory requirements: (1) is “not subject to any of the disabilities which would prevent him or her from obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card,” (2) is “thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns,” and (3) “[h]as demonstrated a justifiable need to carry a handgun.”…The decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen prevents us from continuing to require a demonstration of justifiable need in order to carry a firearm, but it does not prevent us from enforcing the other requirements in our law.

    In the section on reviewing concealed carry permit applications, Platkin’s directive says:

    In reviewing an individual’s application for a permit to carry, the applicable law enforcement agency shall continue to ensure that the applicant satisfies all of the criteria of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4d and N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4, except that the applicant need not submit a written certification of justifiable need to carry a handgun.

    Platkin’s directive ends, “This Directive shall take effect immediately and remain in force and effect unless and until it is repealed, amended, or superseded by Order of the Attorney General.”

    Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen struck down New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance.

    In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  5. #64
    Next up: Red Flag laws

    Feeling irrationally angry after an argument with his wife in 2015, the police were called on firearm owner Edward Caniglia to perform a welfare check. He agreed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation at the hospital to determine suicidality on the condition that police not confiscate his guns.

    Upon returning to his home, however, Caniglia found that the police had unconstitutionally searched his house and seized his firearms.

    For the first time in 13 years, the Court upheld both privacy and gun rights, this time unanimously. Caniglia v. Strom’s 9-0 decision has the potential to create lasting effects and set precedent as powerful as was DC v. Heller in 2008.

    Incredibly, after Caniglia sued the officers, the First District court ruled in favor of the police officers and incorrectly claimed the seizure was justified under a “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment. In essence, the court tried to equate the police stopping to help a disabled vehicle on the side of the road to an illegal search of a private residence.

    Caniglia appealed his case until it was received by the Supreme Court in 2021. Justice Thomas succinctly expressed the majority opinion of all nine justices that such an overt violation of the Fourth Amendment was obviously unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court rightly protected the sanctity of the home on May 17th’s landmark decision. The First District court’s inadequately reasoned “caretaking exception” is an example of a ruse often used by the state when individual rights prevent it from getting what it wants.

    This reaffirmation of both privacy and Second Amendment rights should give pause to advocates of red flag laws. Posing as defenders of public safety, red flag laws bypass the Second and Fourth Amendments while simultaneously abolishing due process.

    Libertas Institute consistently defends both Second and Fourth Amendment rights and has previously fought against red flag laws, which have been proposed in Utah as recently as 2020.

    Within the context of red flag laws, a person may call on the police to conduct a warrantless intrusion into their neighbor’s home to illegally seize their firearms under the slightest suspicion that a firearm owner may pose some public danger. Only after proving their innocence before a court where they have been presumed guilty of pre-crime can the law-abiding citizen possibly retrieve their property.

    If Caniglia v. Strom teaches us anything, it is that the government cannot justify itself around the Fourth Amendment to invade private residences based on fear or gut feeling.

    The court’s decision serves as a reminder that the public must continually call out unconstitutional practices and push back the encroaching vines of arbitrary government intervention in order to retain their rights.
    Without a valid warrant, a person’s home remains a sanctuary, “free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. #DraftJaniceRogersBrown for #SCOTUS
    By groverblue in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-15-2016, 06:06 PM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-16-2014, 10:54 PM
  3. SCOTUS strikes down DOMA
    By Carlybee in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 06-30-2013, 03:28 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-18-2011, 06:57 PM
  5. The Empire Strikes? Bring it on already with the public sector strikes!
    By Live_Free_Or_Die in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-26-2011, 07:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts