NY passes new unconstitutional gun law to spite SCOTUS
Supreme Court justices just love it when politicians seek cute dodges to avoid obeying the Constitution. They admire spunky disobedience to their rulings. This will be fun.
Does she really think that requiring submission of social media accounts for subjective review of character meets the ‘shall issue’ standard? Identity of past relationship partners?
A 6 month delay to appeal a rejection?
Labeling almost all public places ‘sensitive areas?’
This is political masochism. When this hits the courts, she should pray it gets blocked at the lowest possible court. If it gets to SCOTUS, you can bet they will be VERY specific about what they mean by ‘shall not be infringed.’
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Crowded cities are not ideal for carrying firearms like the hills of Texas.(Uh, maybe another state that doesn’t have a track record of mass shootings…New Hampshire perhaps.) Police may have to guess who the good guys and the bad guys are with guns.
Now “that will be fun”.😇
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cities are exactly the places you should be armed, but that’s not the point.
The point is that Hochul is flatly defying the Constitution and the Supreme Court, That rarely works out well.
LikeLike
Source: “The new law will require people trying to purchase a handgun license to hand over a list of social media accounts they have maintained over the last three years, so officials can verify their ‘character and conduct.'”
The first question that comes to mind (after, Are these people crazy?): How will the regulators objectively identify character and conduct that are acceptable?
Also, will cursing be on the checklist? Will one’s Tidewater Forum participation have to be submitted? What about social media on the dark web?
LikeLike
It has nothing to do with finding objective criteria, it is simply a dodge to reinstitute “may issue” by scanning years of social media to find a retweet or joke they can use as evidence of hate against some group and challenge your character.
It is nothing more than trying to pull a fast one on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
LikeLike
The pretense is so obviously absurd, we can rule out incompetence.
LikeLike
Here is a more complete description
Note that all public transportation is a sensitive place, and since in NYC that’s pretty much the only way to get around…
Also, private property will default to prohibited unless the owner specifically authorizes carry.
16 hours classroom instruction and 2 hours on the range, No indication yet on what that will cost but it will be in the hundreds.
My prediction, lawsuits and injunctions will be filed within minutes of the law taking effect, and the courts will not just throw is out, there will be extensive dicta to discourage further subterfuge.
LikeLike
Actually all those requirements make sense.
Private property owners should have the right to ban firearms on the premises. In a hostile environment like we have today, letting the law be the “cop” rather than a clerk or server is prudent. People were getting into fist fights over a mask.
Training is bad? Who knew? It takes time, practice and effort to learn to be comfortable and knowledgeable around firearms. And if everyone is going to carry in shoulder to shoulder crowds like NY, know how to engage a safety and familiarity with laws would be nice at a minimum.
Ever ridden a subway in NY at rush hour?
In my opinion, “constitutional carry” in crowded cities is not terribly bright.
Why not airplanes too?
LikeLiked by 2 people
What can a person need to know about self defense laws and firearms safety that can’t be taught in 2 hours? They’re not going to be on Seal Team 6
But go ahead and make excuses for NY thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court, and what they’ll wind up with is Constitional Carry (no restrictions at all)
LikeLike
The states that have the least restrictive gun laws, constitutional carry included, have the highest gun death rates in the country.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-violence-by-state
The excuse that big cities in the red states cause all the problems is bogus. NY, MA, NJ all have huge cities or metropolitan areas and their gun violence rates are still way down. 1/2 or less in many cases compared to the deep red states.
How is free for all gun ownership doing for those dead people and their families, employers, friends…?
No wonder the red states are so happy to ban abortion. They need to replace people shot to death.
Save the eggs, shoot the children. Moving targets take more skill, no?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why not airplanes too?
Why not indeed. Shortly after 9/11/01 I suggested that the way to prevent a repeat would be to simply hand every 10th person boarding an airplane a handgun loaded with frangible ammunition. No TSA, no groping, and absolutely no chance of a successful hijacking.
In fact, no chance of anyone even trying.
LikeLike
“absolutely no chance of a successful hijacking.”
Plenty of chances for mass murder / suicide though. Duh!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Supreme Court specifically warned against expanding the definition of sensitive places.
Massive resistance
LikeLike
If the people of NY decide subways are sensitive places who are you to tell them otherwise? States rights are not just for forced pregnancies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The majority does not get to deny an explicitly protected Constitutional right to a minority.
In the 1950, the majority in Virginia held that ‘separate but equal’ provided sufficient equality in education for Blacks and that schools should remain segregated.
How is that different, other than that you agree with one and not the other?
LikeLike
Uh, subways did not even exist when the Constitution was written. New York is a very walkable city with excellent taxi service. If some cowardly dope is afraid to be without his little friend, let him walk. Or take a taxi.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Taxis are public transportation too.
LikeLike
“Taxis are public transportation too.”
As I read it, taxis are not “public transportation” in the context of this bill. But if I am wrong, those who cannot face the world without a gun can walk or drive their car.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The right to privacy was good for 50 years until this Court decided it wasn’t.
https://goodfaithmedia.org/is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-privacy/
The eventual Brown v BofEd essentially said you cannot discriminate based on skin color or one drop rules. Second class citizenship was getting pretty indefensible by this point. Especially after WW2. Even with the very discriminatory doling out of GI Bills.
As the site discusses, privacy is inherent in the Bill of Rights and eventually the 14th Amendment. Drop that interpretation and all sorts of abuses by minority parties are going to crop up.
You cry privacy rights every time you complain about gun registration.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, I claim that registration is a prelude to confiscation and thus an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights.
LikeLike
I know you do. 40,000 Americans shot to death each year might debate that, except, of course they can’t.
PS: another mass shooting at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, a suburb of Chicago.. This town is pretty high end, 90% White with incomes in the $250k range. No exactly gang banger folks that you dismiss as distorting the gun death rates, even though they are Americans.
Gosh, I feel so safe because of the 2nd Amendment
PS: a Highland Park police spokesman has confirmed 6 dead and at least 24 taken to area hospitals with serious injuries. Manhunt in progress looking for a young, White male who shot from a rooftop.
A wonderful day in the neighborhood.
We can now add parades to dangerous place in the US. Schools, colleges, Walmarts, shopping malls, concerts, grocery stores, churches, synagogues…
Well, at least the gun sales will pick up again as they do after every bloodbath.
We have a joke on golf when playing matches against opponents. “Every shot makes somebody happy.” I never thought it would apply to gun violence. But it sure does.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The Supreme Court specifically warned against expanding the definition of sensitive places.”
They also specifically declined to define this important expression. So, the Legislature overwhelmingly approved various locations where anyone with any common sense does not want armed people around. If SCOTUS thinks you should be able to carry weapons into the subway system, let them rule on the case that some shithead is sure to bring.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I doubt if it will get to the Supreme Court this time. Any Federal judge who has read Bruen will be fully prepped to enjoin NY at that level.
LikeLike
Uh, make that Trump-appointed Federal judge and you may be right. They are activist hacks too. But New York will continue the case after such an injunction. It will come back to SCOTUS and they – instead of the people of New York – can legislate the meaning of “sensitive places.”
With such activists on SCOTUS, you may yet get to take your little friend with you on an airplane. Won’t that be peachy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you saying that only Trump appointed judges can read?
LikeLike
“Are you saying that only Trump appointed judges can read?”
No, I am saying that Trump appointed judges are mainly activist hacks many of whom could not even get the endorsement of the ABA. If they got the chance to spit in the face of New York, they would.
You can pretend that “sensitive places” are limited to “courts and prisons”, but they are not. You can pretend that the people of a state acting through their legislatures have no right to decide what places are “sensitive places,” but they do.
Heller is a bad decision. It is right up there with Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. It will be overturned and discarded. The Constitution says you have a right to keep and bear arms as a member of a well-regulated militia which is there to PROTECT the state and which Congress can summon to suppress insurrection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would seem your argument is with SCOTUS
LikeLike
“It would seem your argument is with SCOTUS”
No, my argument is with the corrupt political party that has corrupted SCOTUS and turned it into a corrupt super-Legislature that the Constitution never intended.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I could have said the same thing at the end of the Obama administration. It’s not like Kagan or Sotomayor ever stray from the party line.
LikeLike
While on the subject of SCOTUS bias, we are stuck with lifetime appointments for justices because the Constitution so dictates.
Fine. That was to keep justices above the fray of political appointments as presidents change every 4 years. But it was also at a time when life expectancies were 40 years or so. Not to say that the likely appointees might live a bit longer since wealth then, as now, helped to stay alive. Plus infant mortality was very common, lowering the average life expectancies.
But, today we have justices staying on for decades, well into their 80’s and even 90’s. Cognitive decline is not uncommon at ages over 70.
Originalists or no Originalists, it is time to limit justices. Even just a mandatory retirement at 65 or 70 would be a start. But perhaps a twenty year limit might be prudent and that would span at least 5 presidential elections with 3 or more different presidents, making the political less influential.
This would require an amendment, of course. And with today’s political climate, if there were majority liberal judges, red states would stumble over each other to ratify. And vice versa.
Jefferson said one would not expect a man to fit the clothes he wore as a child anymore that we should expect our Constitution to fit our needs in the future without change. Yes, amendments help, but we need to codify some things and inject clarity that makes sense in a modern industrial world. Accepted “norms” are not enough as we have found out recently.
IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I could have said the same thing at the end of the Obama administration”
At the end of the Obama Administration, the nominee was blocked by the Senate Majority Leader. Unconstitutionally, I might add. And because of that unconstitutional action, the court has a 6-3 conservative majority. SO your contenting that at that time there was a chance of the zealotry form the left is blown away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It’s not like Kagan or Sotomayor ever stray from the party line.”
Or follow it.
Unlike the Theocrats now calling the shots, they believe in the Constitution and actually give weight to precedent. Neither of them stole a seat from a popular President nor did the President have to stop the FBI from investigating their sex crimes and shady dealings. And, neither of them lied to Senators in the process.
The Court has never been lower in public esteem. And deservedly so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hochul is a politician running for re-election. She would not have proposed this collection of sensible improvements in New York’s gun laws if she were not very confident that they have broad support. And they do. This reform has already sailed through the legislature.
I am pretty familiar with the Constitution. It says nothing about a right to bear arms secretly. That is more akin to a privilege than a right. IMHO. According to the information you provided the new bill was heavily lawyered to meet the – ahem – Constitutional objections to New York’s 100-year-old restrictions on guns in public places. So, sure. let’s have the NRA do its thing and try to kill people on behalf gun profits. Let’s see good that lawyering was.
Personally, I find that a positive affirmation by private businesses that gun-totters are welcome a very good idea. I do not want to mingle with the kind of people who think they need a gun with them at the Olive Garden. And would avoid doing business with anyone who welcomes them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your feelings do not change the Constitution.
LikeLike
Neither does your gun fetish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is so stupid on all fronts it isn’t funny and leave it to extremist liberals to try to defend it. Who gets to be the “object” determiner of proper “character” in order to judge ones mental qualifications to be allowed to carry or own, some sniveling liberal butthead named Paul Trump? We all know how that works out and it is against the constitution that they abhor so much. You know, the law!!! Why do sniveling liberals hate abiding by law so much? It’s because they are all either criminals, aid and abet criminals or are trying to be one…
LikeLike
Liberals reject the Rule of Law because they are totalitarians at heart.
LikeLike
“Liberals reject the Rule of Law because they are totalitarians at heart”
Classic “conservative” rhetorical trick – accuse your political opponents of your thing. Your childish comment isn’t worthy of a response and is a poor substitute for the “moderation” that Mr. Smith’s ugly incivility should provoke.
With that said, I see a lot of this kind of mindless lashing out recently. Cognitive dissonance getting you people down? Is the truth which you have been resisting for years finally beginning to penetrate?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again
LikeLiked by 1 person
In spite of the fact that Trump lives rent free in your head, this is not about Trump.
This is about liberals being unable to accept the Rule of Law when it doesn’t go their way.
LikeLike
“Trump lives rent free in your head”
The shithead whose incivility you cheerlead referred to me as “some sniveling liberal butthead named Paul Trump.” Speak to him about Trump living in HIS head.
Your blather about respect for the Rule of Law is just that blather. And empty blather at that. In this case, the Governor and the Legislature of New York responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling by crafting new laws that address the Constitutional issues they cited. There is NOTHING unlawful about that response. Your general belief is that anything you don’t agree with is unlawful. Your belief is wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The 2nd Amendment protects the right of people to keep and BEAR arms.
Tell me, under the NY list of sensitive places, a NYC resident can go anywhere without entering at least one sensitive place? If his daily activities involve even one ‘sensitive place’ then he cannot carry at all.
Further, the training required, at the applicant’s expense, makes a permit prohibitively expensive for all but the elite. That’s no different than imposing a poll tax on the right to vote.
This is a direct challenge to the Bruen ruling. Thumbing your nose at SCOTUS is not a wise decision.
LikeLike
“If his daily activities involve even one ‘sensitive place’ then he cannot carry at all.”
Yes, probably true, but the Governor, the Legislature and the people of New York do not want people with hidden weapons in their midst. That has been the desired result in their law for about 100 years. So now they have found a Constitutional way to get what they want. You should be pleased.
If it turns out that this Constitutional approach is of necessity more restrictive than what you people had thrown out, it is just another case of “Be careful of what you wish for.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The people of NY don’t want citizens exercising their Constitutional rights so this OK? The people of 1950s Virginia did not want colored children in their children’s schools. Did they get their way?
So, it is ok with you then if all the polling places are located in gated communities distant from where people live and work, open only from 9 to 4, as it only makes exercising that right to vote difficult but not impossible?
This is not a constitutional workaround, it is open defiance of the law.
BTW, the Heller decision referenced ‘sensitive places’ such as courts and prisons. So, which one is NY?
LikeLike
Guns have no place at the polls. By even making this suggestion (which, by the way is EXACTLY what voter suppression types, including yourself, would love to see), you show your zealotry for gun’s as opposed to reasonable restrictions on where people would be allowed to carry.
You say compromise is not possible on gun rights because it is absolute. Tell me what commandment in the Bible ensured the right to bear arm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How are you doing? Did you get the Paxlovid.
The Bible has nothing to do with it. The Constitution does.
LikeLike
No time to get it from the doc. DOing better though. Going to test later this afternoon to see if is is safe for the wife to come home. SHe is staying locally at my daughter’s until the coast is clear.
Wait a minute. All I keep hearing is about G-d given, natural rights, and how the Constitution only guarantees them and that man cannot grant rights. The gith to self-defense is a G-d given right. The right to own a gun to do so is granted by man.
Do you see the fallacy of the natural rights argument?
LikeLike
I don’t have my natural rights from god.
I have the right to self defense because if forced to do so I will assert it. There is nothing the state can do to me worse than not defending myself.
LikeLike
Maybe you should explain that to Mr. Roberts.
And the state is not denying the right. Regulating it is IN the 2A. But those words mean nothing because of commas and grammar?
THey also spelled thing differently and wrote script differently. Definitions matter. Intent matters.
But to ZEALOTS, only GUNS matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“sensitive places”
Your made-up facts are always handy. In fact, the Heller decision did not give either “courts” or “prisons” as examples of “sensitive places.” The examples given were “schools” and “government buildings.”
Here is the full context of that reference to “sensitive places.”
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. ”
There is NO ATTEMPT to limit the meaning of “sensitive places” and anyone who has ever ridden on a NYC subway or tried to make their way through a Times Square throng knows that they are “sensitive places” in the context of public safety.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of ugly incivility, every last one of your posts qualifies for that definition. Except to your fellow liberal minions of course. And in case you didn’t notice, you just did what you falsely accused Doc of. Geeeesh….
LikeLike
You being the professional insulter on this board, your comment is noted. But you don’t see it in yourself because of your high and mighty view of what YOU think is right and wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet it is the Conservatives who are pushing to control lives from womb to tomb.
Small government means “whatever Conservatives says” with no regard for anyone that disagrees with them. Laws mean as little to COnservatives as anyone else.
So who, really are the totalitarians here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably not the ones seeking to protect unborn babies.
LikeLike
Unborn babies?
There are no more “totalitarian” people than those who think women are the chattel of the state. You can parrot their nonsense until you turn blue, it remains nonsense. And the use of the state to enforce religious orthodoxy could not be more antithetical to the founding principles of this country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not religious, But I understand the necessity to protect unborn babies once self-awareness exists.
That’s not being a theocrat, it’s just not being a monster.
LikeLike
Not allowing a woman to decide what to do with her body qualifies you as a monster. – IMO
LikeLiked by 1 person
She can do anything she wants with HER body. But she has an obligation to her passenger.
LikeLike
You mean the stowaway. Sorry, but too many times that ship has sailed. THe stowaway has chosen to be there; the baby has not and therefore the “host” should be able to decide what to do with it. A reasonable time frame is where consensus should be found. 18-24 weeks is not a bad compromise. But full bans, or 6 week bans are impossible for ANYONE to make the right decision for themselves. ANd the banning of Plan B pills is coming.
So the 10 year old girl in the midwest, who I am sure made a bad choice or decision and ended up pregnant being forced to carry to term is just fine with you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have repeatedly said what I thought best. A 15 -18 week threshold for protection.
But I also know that I don’t get to dictate my preference to the people of another state.
LikeLike
ANd therefore there should be a national law protecting a woman’s rights to her body.
The states that are pushing for all out bans and 6 week heartbeat bills are a problem for the rest of the country. Even those who are rolling back the windows to 15 weeks.
LikeLike
If the people of Mississippi determine that for their purposes unborn life should be protected at 6 weeks, where do the people of Virginia get the right to tell them they are wrong?
LikeLike
“If the people of Mississippi determine. . .”
Try to wrap your head around the idea that we are one country.
LikeLiked by 2 people
With separation of powers between the States and Federal governments.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Constitution does not include the determination of the beginning of life in the enumerated powers of the Federal government, nor does it prohibit the states from doing so.
Thus it falls on the states.
And that’s a good thing.
LikeLike
Yet there are national candidates in the GOP who are calling for an all-out ban on abortions. I don’t see you telling us that they are wrong.
LikeLike
They are wrong.
I have consistently said this is a matter for the states. That is the same thing as saying it is not a matter for Congress.
LikeLike
Not in my view. BUt thank you for finally acknowledging that.
LikeLike
“If the people of Mississippi “…
The REPRESENTATIVES of the people, you mean. And do those representatives actually represent the majority of people on that state? Or is the gerrymandered legislature set up toi prepresent a minority of the population?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you have evidence that a majority in Mississippi disagree?
LikeLike
Why is abortion ok to save the life of the mother? What did the fetus do to deserve death just because the mother can’t handle pregnancy?
After viability, at least 23 weeks, it is a crapshoot and the survivor in dicey deliveries is the winner. Unless we are being hypocritical. Once a fertilized egg becomes on par with a grown adult, we have a real Gordian Knot.
There are so many variables so leaving pregnancy to term should be up to the mother and her physician.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That makes no sense.
The mother retains her right to self-defense, but once there is a person, that right applies only to risk to her that would justify taking the life of a born person.
LikeLike
Of course it makes sense. We just had a case of a raped 10 year old who had to go to Indiana for an abortion.
Now tell me a 10 year old is not risking her life or well being for life by not being able to abort early. She might have physically survived the birth, but you can bet there will be problems for her well into old age.
Is a mother’s life more worthy. What about the right of self defense for the fetus or fertilized egg?
Now I know that law favors the life of the mother over the fetus. But that kills, literally, the argument that the fetus is entitled to protections of personhood.
You can’t have it both ways if we are forcing women to bear unwanted children.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Knowing nothing of the circumstances of this 10 year old I can’t comment on that.
But the issue remains when a person is present, and that is to be defined by the consensus of the legislature. Prior to that, there is no issue.
After, self defense still applies, but convenience no longer that precedence.
LikeLike
The “circumstances” mean nothing when talking about a 10 year old CHILD. Ohio’s law banned abortion after 6 weeks. How in the hell would a 10 year old even know she was pregnant or even had the opportunity to become pregnant? Yet her doctor has had to arrange for her to travel to Indiana where new restrictions have not yet been put in place. (Special legislative session to come soon to get in line with Ohio.)
Until legislatures are forbidden to use religious thresholds for making their decisions and can say, convincingly that they have used scientific evidence to determine personhood (and not a fetal heartbeat), they should not change anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a Theocrat?
You could have fooled me since you refuse to understand that “babies” have all the protection that any legislature has cared to enact within the framework established by Roe v. Wade.
Not a monster?
You could have fooled me because there is nothing more monstrous than forcing a pubescent child to become a mother against her will.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/
LikeLiked by 2 people
What part of womb to tomb is foreign to you?
The womb is solely the body part of a WOMAN. Your only contact was when you were in your mother’s. She should have every right to control what is happening there.
And to go further, how many Republicans are now pushing for a NATIONWIDE ban on abortion?Even though SCOTUS has returned the decision to the states.
I commented about THomas’ concurrence as being a stepping stone for privacy rights wrt relationships, marriage, and contraceptives being taken away by the next term. I have been reassured by those on the right that it will not happen. These are the SAME people who said abortion is now where it belongs; with the states. Yet not one of of you has stood up and said that a nationwide ban on abortions is not what the court said.
LikeLiked by 1 person