in public, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArti...tates_Concealed_Gun_Law&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArti...tates_Concealed_Gun_Law&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
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.
:banghead:
I hope they appeal and stomp that retarded ruling in a higher court.
How can totally and absolutely prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying self-defensive firearms not possibly be in violation of the Second Amendment?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."
in public, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArti...tates_Concealed_Gun_Law&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
While I disagree with the judge's [strike]logic[/strike] 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.
in public, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArti...tates_Concealed_Gun_Law&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
in public, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
It is called Constitutional carry because one can carry anyway they damn well please. Exactly the way the framers of the BOR wanted it.
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.
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]
in public, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArti...tates_Concealed_Gun_Law&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
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.