Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: UH-OH! New Yorkers do not have a constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun

  1. #1
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169

    UH-OH! New Yorkers do not have a constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun

    in public, a federal judge ruled yesterday.


    http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArtic...n=1&hbxlogin=1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  2. #2
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg similarly praised Judge Seibel for her ruling.

    "Common-sense restrictions like the one the court upheld today do nothing to infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans, but are essential to fighting gun crime on our streets," he said in a statement.

    Mr. Bloomberg said the law is essential to both protect police officers and New Yorkers, "which can be done while respecting the Second Amendment."
    Because it is common knowledge that only criminals apply for CC permits.

    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  3. #3
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by handyhamlet View Post
    because it is common knowledge that only criminals apply for cc permits.

    lolz
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 1Grizzly1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    54
    Marin also held that transporting a loaded weapon on a public street "creates a volatile situation vulnerable to spontaneous lethal aggression in the event of road rage or any other disagreement or dispute."

    Since when? This mentality is ridiculous.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Geez, what's wrong with Pennsylvania then? Someone recently crunched the numbers and roughly one in thirteen adults is licensed to carry concealed here in the Commonwealth. Plus, open carry doesn't require a license at all (except in Philadelphia), and there are a number of us that openly carry. The last time I was at Pittsburgh International Airport I open carried even, and no volatile situation vulnerable to spontaneous lethal aggression in the event of road rage or any other disagreement or dispute occurred.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    I hope they appeal and stomp that retarded ruling in a higher court.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    I hope they appeal and stomp that retarded ruling in a higher court.
    All of this right here ^
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg similarly praised Judge Seibel for her ruling.

    "Common-sense restrictions like the one the court upheld today do nothing to infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans, but are essential to fighting gun crime on our streets," he said in a statement.

    Mr. Bloomberg said the law is essential to both protect police officers and New Yorkers, "which can be done while respecting the Second Amendment."
    How can totally and absolutely prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying self-defensive firearms not possibly be in violation of the Second Amendment?

    My only comforting thought is that after all the recent 9/11 memorial shenanigans, Bloomberg has about zero supporters.

    I wonder just what mind-altering drugs this man consumes?

    TFred

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    in public, a federal judge ruled yesterday.


    http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArtic...n=1&hbxlogin=1
    While I disagree with the judge's logic illogic, I agree with the conclusion that there is no right to conceal. There is a right to carry. As long as the State does not prevent carry in a reasonable manner, I don't see laws regulating the separate and independent act of concealment as rights infringements. Stupid from a policy standpoint, but not infringing from a 2A standpoint.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Jamestown NC
    Posts
    67
    But, NYS does prevent a reasonable method of carry by restricting possession of handguns to permit holders only. and the permits are for concealed carry only.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    While I disagree with the judge's logic illogic, I agree with the conclusion that there is no right to conceal. There is a right to carry. As long as the State does not prevent carry in a reasonable manner, I don't see laws regulating the separate and independent act of concealment as rights infringements. Stupid from a policy standpoint, but not infringing from a 2A standpoint.
    What a bunch of hogwash. Oh, wait, he's always full of it.

    It is called Constitutional carry because one can carry anyway they damn well please. Exactly the way the framers of the BOR wanted it. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    in public, a federal judge ruled yesterday.


    http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArtic...n=1&hbxlogin=1
    Thanks for posting that! It's going to be brought into the radio show today, subject: Court decision that LEOs have NO duty to protect.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    in public, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
    In violation of SCOTUS. This one won't pass muster.

    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    It is called Constitutional carry because one can carry anyway they damn well please. Exactly the way the framers of the BOR wanted it.
    It's exactly the way most Americans wanted it, too, both then as well as now. Laws prohibiting concealed carry arose en masse only after Lincoln was shot. For a while there, OC was the only way to go. Fortunately, it still is in all but about seven HUA states.

    Quote Originally Posted by p85 View Post
    But, NYS does prevent a reasonable method of carry by restricting possession of handguns to permit holders only. and the permits are for concealed carry only.
    Does it say "the right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed to the extent where only reasonable carry is allowed?"

    Or does it say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"
    Last edited by since9; 09-11-2011 at 02:44 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Jamestown NC
    Posts
    67
    the 2nd says the right shall not be infringed. my point (in my post) was that ny does infringe. ny citizens are restricted to possession by permit only. and that permit does not allow open carry.
    if I missed your point since9, my apologies

  15. #15
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    IIRC, NY does not have a constitutional right to carry, it's legislated; therefore, they have the option to 'restrict'. There is no 'constitutional right' to 'conceal' carry in NY. Now, there the lil ole 2A that comes to play. Are they violating it? Good question. Time will tell.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    It occurs to me that we are going about this all wrong.

    Why, if we were true to the current American model, we would go into the holster-making business or invest heavily in the holster-making business (and leather tanning, etc.).

    Then, form an industry lobbying group--to pool our money for political contributions. Then lobby the legislature to write a misleading constitutional carry statute that required all hand guns carried outside the home to be carried in an industry-approved holster. While handing out wads of cash to legislators.

    Then we sell it to the public that criminals don't wear holsters because they're afraid to have to explain an empty holster to a cop (having just ditched the gun used in the crime).

    Then, we sit back and let the dough roll in from the holster sales.

    There's no reason rights shouldn't be profitable!

    [/sarcasm]

  17. #17
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    It occurs to me that we are going about this all wrong.

    Why, if we were true to the current American model, we would go into the holster-making business or invest heavily in the holster-making business (and leather tanning, etc.).

    Then, form an industry lobbying group--to pool our money for political contributions. Then lobby the legislature to write a misleading constitutional carry statute that required all hand guns carried outside the home to be carried in an industry-approved holster. While handing out wads of cash to legislators.

    Then we sell it to the public that criminals don't wear holsters because they're afraid to have to explain an empty holster to a cop (having just ditched the gun used in the crime).

    Then, we sit back and let the dough roll in from the holster sales.

    There's no reason rights shouldn't be profitable!

    [/sarcasm]

    haha @ [/sarcasm]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  18. #18
    Regular Member jammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    62

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    in public, a federal judge ruled yesterday.


    http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArtic...n=1&hbxlogin=1
    This is what is wrong in Florida, and other retirement states----- TOO MANY NEW YORKERS HERE!!!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    The thing that puts NY in perspective is that the first gun control law passed in NY was the 1911 Sullivan Act, named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, which was passed to protect Sullivan's constituents, who were mostly criminals, against those dastardly citizens who decided to protect themselves from getting mugged. Not much has changed.

    Tammany Hall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall

  20. #20
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    What a bunch of hogwash. Oh, wait, he's always full of it.

    It is called Constitutional carry because one can carry anyway they damn well please. Exactly the way the framers of the BOR wanted it. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
    Two phrases in the Second Amendment that are so frequently misunderstood and twisted by interpretation under the microscope of today's vernacular. The first one is, "A well regulated Militia". The word "regulated" is almost always interpreted to mean trained, disciplined, or drilled. But this is not what this word meant in this context in 1791. The meaning then, and therefore the meaning we should and must apply, was "to keep and make regular" (source: Judge Anthony Napolitano).

    The second phrase in question is, "to keep and bear Arms". "Arms" referred to weapons which were capable of bearing borne on or about the person. And "bear" was the synonym for borne on or about the person. So the carrying of a weapon on or about your person, as the word bear was meant to imply, would mean in any fashion one can carry said weapon on or about their person. The fact that the word "concealed" doesn't appear is identical to the fact that the word "open [or openly]" also does not appear.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 09-16-2011 at 10:30 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  21. #21
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Two phrases in the Second Amendment that are so frequently misunderstood and twisted by interpretation under the microscope of today's vernacular. The first one is, "A well regulated Militia". The word "regulated" is almost always interpreted to mean trained, discipline, or drilled. But this is not what this word meant in this context in 1791. The meaning then, and therefore the meaning we should and must apply, was "to keep and make regular" (source: Judge Anthony Napolitano).

    The second phrase in question is, "to keep and bear Arms". "Arms" referred to weapons which were capable of bearing borne on or about the person. And "bear" was the synonym for borne on or about the person. So the carrying of a weapon on or about your person, as the word bear was meant to imply, would mean in any fashion one can carry said weapon or or about their person. The fact that the word "concealed" doesn't appear is identical to the fact that the word "open [or openly]" also does not appear.
    I think that you just said the same thing I said. I just didn't get into the particulars. I don't think his brain is capable of digesting that much info in one sitting.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  22. #22
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    I think that you just said the same thing I said. I just didn't get into the particulars. I don't think his brain is capable of digesting that much info in one sitting.
    Actually I think eye95 is not only very intelligent, but also well educated and read, and well spoken. We all have different ways of looking at things and he and I had a difference of opinion on a constitutional matter about two years ago. But I think we both believe that on those subjects where we may differ, we can agree to disagree.

    The thing is to keep this all civil, rational, mature, and respectful in our discourses. I tend to view the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights in a more finite and absolute light, believing that the Founders knew exactly what they were doing and saying. We should also keep in mind that their use of the English language was exceptional and considerably better than that which we see in our contemporary world.

    Just a thought.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  23. #23
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by jammer View Post
    This is what is wrong in Florida, and other retirement states----- TOO MANY NEW YORKERS HERE!!!
    You make a very good point and far more serious than some might think. While your response here might be taken in jest as one of humor, indeed it portends something ominous and is something that worries me greatly.

    It is human nature to take along things from one's prior life as they migrate to another state. Furniture, cars, and other items of property are fine. Ideas about things political and social can be dangerous to those who are native to the areas in which the migration is taking place. Please folks, before you jump all over me, hear me out on this.

    I have seen the movement of people in recent years to a small town in Virginia and many of those people are coming from areas inside and around the Capital Beltway surrounding Washington, DC. These people have a different outlook than those who are long time residents of this small Virginia town... Culpeper, which has been "discovered" as a desirable place to live.

    Well folks in Culpeper own guns.. I would bet the majority of the population there enjoys this right. And along with this, they also enjoyed shooting at targets in their back yard, something many had done for generations. It wasn't long before some of the new residents started invading the town council meetings demanding that laws be passed to curtail this activity for all manner of reasons (have to wonder if one reason was that some of them don't like firearms). I don't know if they were successful in their efforts, but I would guess not.

    What this all means is that people coming to an area of the country that is quite different than that from which they originated need to understand that if they are of a mind to shove things down the throats of the locals because "it's just not something they would do", they are not about to ingratiate themselves with the indigenous folks. The old adage, "when in Rome, do as the Romans" comes to mind. And besides, doing this will eventually kill that which was so attractive to many people to begin with. The golden goose just ain't gonna survive this sort of poison.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 09-16-2011 at 10:44 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    What this all means is that people coming to an area of the country that is quite different than that from which they originated need to understand that if they are of a mind to shove things down the throats of the locals because "it's just not something they would do", they are not about to ingratiate themselves with the indigenous folks. The old adage, "when in Rome, do as the Romans" comes to mind. And besides, doing this will eventually kill that which was so attractive to many people to begin with. The golden goose just ain't gonna survive this sort of poison.
    Utah and Idaho have a similar problem with the invasion of Californians who then try and turn their new home into what they left.

    Here in Utah we have a phrase that sums it up... Don't Californicate Utah!

  25. #25
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    Utah and Idaho have a similar problem with the invasion of Californians who then try and turn their new home into what they left.

    Here in Utah we have a phrase that sums it up... Don't Californicate Utah!
    The very real danger is if enough of them migrate to your state and form a voting block, things that made your states rich in your culture and traditions could very well become a thing of the past. I worry a lot about this for my beloved South. Because we are such an attractive region of the country to move to, we are in real danger of loosing those things that we Southerners hold dear.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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