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
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
UH-OH! New Yorkers do not have a constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun
- Thread starter hammer6
- Start date
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Because it is common knowledge that only criminals apply for CC permits.
:banghead:
lolz
1Grizzly1
Regular Member
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.
Since when? This mentality is ridiculous.
Statkowski
Regular Member
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.
Aknazer
Regular Member
I hope they appeal and stomp that retarded ruling in a higher court.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
All of this right here ^
TFred
Regular Member
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
eye95
Well-known member
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.
p85
Regular Member
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.
rodbender
Regular Member
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.
REALteach4u
Regular Member
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.
since9
Campaign Veteran
In violation of SCOTUS. This one won't pass muster.
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.
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:
p85
Regular Member
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
if I missed your point since9, my apologies
Redbaron007
Regular Member
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.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
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]
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]
This is what is wrong in Florida, and other retirement states----- TOO MANY NEW YORKERS HERE!!!
rpyne
Regular Member
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
Tammany Hall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
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: