Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Supreme Court vacates and remands remaining 2A cases | Main | "The Equalizer" »

Antigun legislatures react to NYSRPA

Posted by David Hardy · 30 June 2022 12:00 PM

New York proposes to ban even licensed carry in any business that does not post a sign allowing it, plus requiring 15 hours of live-fire training on a range, and banning carry on 'sensitive place' including parks and public transit. Word is that the legislature is meeting today to vote on this.

California proposes to require three character witnesses and to expand "sensitive areas" where guns cannot be possessed, to include "medical facilities, public transit, public parks, playgrounds, public demonstrations and any place where alcohol is sold." It's a safe bet that the three references requirement will be expanded to require personal interviews of the references, which will be given the lowest law enforcement priority so that they take months or years to complete.

13 Comments | Leave a comment

JC_VO | June 30, 2022 3:07 PM | Reply

Surprising no one. The trick is, will SCOTUS now realize that they don't care about what they say, and respond accordingly.

If they keep this up, SCOTUS should consider declaring the permitting system unconstitutional under Bruen.

Leonard Hill | June 30, 2022 5:47 PM | Reply

I had been sad thinking about all the ways states could block the issuance of permits. But then I realized that they can't get too good at blocking permits, because if only a tiny number of permit applications are granted, then it will be obvious to the Supreme Court that they are violating the right to bear on a large scale. They can find ways to block a fair amount, but they will have to grant many permits if the Supreme Court is willing to enforce.

Ed Bernay | June 30, 2022 7:53 PM | Reply

Does NYC allow retired cops to carry and what standard are they required to meet? What about LEOSA? Are these proposed standards more strict than either of these?

Liberty1 | June 30, 2022 9:31 PM | Reply

I think it should be hard for states to justify new restrictions when their old restrictions or no restrictions were just fine under existing state law for decades.

It smacks of an overt attempt to quell the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right they are now finally required to recognize. An honest court should look very questioningly at these legislatures new restrictions so suddenly contrived along with the very public statements by politicians that this is being done specifically to counter the exercise of this right and not connected to a legitimate concern about the location Restrictions which weren’t needed just a week ago.

I also suspect they’ll be numerous 14th amendment issues with how they treat retired state employees who now have no LE purpose to their possession exemptions if unequal to the general carry licenses.

Marcus Poulin | July 1, 2022 1:21 AM | Reply

Will they have to Vacate their Magazine Bans due to the Bruen Ruling Eventually?

Fyooz | July 1, 2022 8:43 AM | Reply

If NY requires 15 hours of live fire,

they had better allow more ranges to open.

Fyooz | July 1, 2022 8:49 AM | Reply

"how they treat retired state employees who now have no LE purpose to their possession exemptions if unequal to the general carry licenses."

If NY requires periodic retraining---so many hours per year---they'd better require it of retired peace officers too. Unless the law establishes some threshold of cumulative training that peace officers received through their careers.

Then the non-peace officer population must enjoy the rights that come with satisfying that threshold too.

Then we can discuss the cumulative training that former military members received (how many Expert badges did SSgt Jackson receive in his 8 years?) that are a matter of official government record.

Pete | July 1, 2022 10:02 AM | Reply

That which is not permitted is forbidden?
Sounds vaguely familiar.

Carl from Chicago | July 1, 2022 12:48 PM | Reply

NY gun laws are rather complex, so please correct me on the following.
However, my understanding was that their “unrestricted” licenses, authorized on the recently overturned “proper cause” criterion, did not restrict carry in places such as bars/restaurants, private businesses, public transport, etc. In other words, those licensed under the previous criteria will be greatly restricted if this new state law is upheld.

I view this newly passed legislation to further restrict licensed carry in response to Bruen as a blatant and purposeful subversion of the Bruen ruling. Sadly, this new law will have to be challenged with future litigation. It’s like a bad game of whack-a-mole.

Old Guy | July 1, 2022 6:48 PM | Reply

I expect NY to use the line: ‘How Many Divisions Does the SCOTUS Have?’

Ed Bernay | July 1, 2022 9:03 PM | Reply

I would like to see SCOTUS now revise qualified and absolute immunity.

Anonymous | July 2, 2022 6:06 AM | Reply

This will take years maybe decades to litigate. Lawyers will built their entire working life with this litigation.

Hank Archer | July 6, 2022 8:48 AM | Reply

Concealed carry licensees should be able to carry anywhere Peace Officers can.

Leave a comment