« NYSRPA aftermath: California caves | Main | Paul Clement hits back at Kirkland & Ellis »
Future plans
The permit regimes of the repressive states (6-8 of them) keyed on two ambiguous requirements for a permit (1) "good cause" or a variant of that, and (2) "good moral character," or a variant of that. NYSRPA knocked out (1). They will likely fall back on (2), arguing that "good moral character" means more than just passes a background check. Create as many new requirements as possible (furnish references, police interviews of references, reject for any possible reason, and certain delay, delay, delay).
It'd be wise to have good folks apply promptly for permits, and start setting up a challenge, ASAP, to the (2) requirement.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Would I be out of line in suspecting Conservatives and Republicans would get extra scrutiny?
California's AG Bonta has released a bulletin to that very effect. Fall back on the "good moral character" requirement, and make the applicant prove it. Scour social media for anything that could be deemed "hate speech" or racist comments. In today's environment where nearly everything is racist, should be easy as pie...application denied, and don't bother coming back.
I have not seen what NJ is going to do other than drop the need requirement but they are already looking to increase the definition of what is a sensitive place. In what I read of the decision I think Thomas you can't just declare the whole island of Manhattan a sensitive place. But that is what they are going to try to do - so back to the courts we go for the next several years
"that is what they are going to try to do - so back to the courts we go for the next several years"
This isn't the beginning of the end. It's the end of the beginning. All hands on deck.
I hope the good guys have a bunch of law abiding citizens from other states, who have their concealed weapons permits for years already, to apply for carry permits in NYC, California, NJ etc. When they get denied they need to sue the issuing agents and vocal politicians for damages. Qualified immunity doesn't apply to violation of an established fundamental constitutional right, correct?
I have expected two things, from the time that it was apparent that the Supreme Court would make this decision.
First, that they would rule the way that they did, although not with such vigor as they did. And second, that the left would do all they could to find a way to get around the rules. They always have and I have not seen anything to indicate that they have changed.
I do think that the high visibility of this verdict will put at the least, a bit of pressure on the left to stick at least somewhat to the rules that the SCOTUS laid down, lest they get called out on it, by way of another legal challenge, to a circuit court, which would slap them down quickly.
We are indeed living in interesting times.