Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

26
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:02 pm I want to be able to drive across the country while openly carrying any gun I want loaded next to me as it should be without every f'ing city, county or state f'ing with me!
Constitutional carry everywhere!
Why?
Because its the constitution of the UNITED STATES. Not the constitution of the cities or counties to edit at will.
Pretty much. I should be able to walk into any business and carry, including ones that sell alcohol.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

27
featureless wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:09 pm As far as the current behavior of New York and California to the NYSRPA ruling, they are acting no different than Trump losing the election. A tirade of throwing your dinner at the wall in a juvenile fit and seeing what sticks. Neither Trump nor the Dems in New York or California seem to give a shit about the constitution or the people they will endanger along the way. I really wish I could help them see that. Further, they are behaving precisely the way the red curtain states do toward access to abortion--lets do everything we can to fuck over (fill in the blank group) because we don't believe what they believe. Rights are not based on belief. Really, they should be fucking ashamed of their behavior.
Which is why they are not the people I would vote for.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

28
NAGR v. Bonta. Link to the filing is within the tweet:
https://twitter.com/NFGR_Official/statu ... y8D7g&s=19
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

29
sikacz wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:46 pm
featureless wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:09 pm As far as the current behavior of New York and California to the NYSRPA ruling, they are acting no different than Trump losing the election. A tirade of throwing your dinner at the wall in a juvenile fit and seeing what sticks. Neither Trump nor the Dems in New York or California seem to give a shit about the constitution or the people they will endanger along the way. I really wish I could help them see that. Further, they are behaving precisely the way the red curtain states do toward access to abortion--lets do everything we can to fuck over (fill in the blank group) because we don't believe what they believe. Rights are not based on belief. Really, they should be fucking ashamed of their behavior.
Which is why they are not the people I would vote for.
Same here. The anti-gunners learned from the anti-abortionists, incremental tightening of laws making legal gun ownership harder and harder. Same tactics just a different rationalization, more and more government intrusion into our lives. It's why the public believes that the two political parties are run by their wings, the extremes.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

31
featureless wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:03 am
DispositionMatrix wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:40 am NAGR v. Bonta. Link to the filing is within the tweet:
https://twitter.com/NFGR_Official/statu ... y8D7g&s=19
That's a humdinger. Bonta fucked up. Badly.

For those that are curious, the state doxed just shy of 600,000 people.

Exactly what I wanted to see, a class action law suit against the AG which means the State of California. And punitive (monetary) damages for all c/c and gun owners in the state since we have no idea who now has our information that was collected by the state in their DROS (also FSC) process and county concealed carry information and other databases. Probably looking at billion of dollars in punitive damages, jury selection will be critical don't want a jury with zero gun owners.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

32

highdesert wrote:
featureless wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:03 am
DispositionMatrix wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:40 am NAGR v. Bonta. Link to the filing is within the tweet:
https://twitter.com/NFGR_Official/statu ... y8D7g&s=19
That's a humdinger. Bonta fucked up. Badly.

For those that are curious, the state doxed just shy of 600,000 people.

Exactly what I wanted to see, a class action law suit against the AG which means the State of California. And punitive (monetary) damages for all c/c and gun owners in the state since we have no idea who now has our information that was collected by the state in their DROS (also FSC) process and county concealed carry information and other databases. Probably looking at billion of dollars in punitive damages, jury selection will be critical don't want a jury with zero gun owners.
Most firearm owners are neither carriers nor tuned into the broader fight to keep firearm ownership legal. I suspect there will be no problem finding jurors in CA sympathetic to the state's desire to punish concealed carriers among both firearm opponents and firearm owners.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

33
DispositionMatrix wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:04 am
highdesert wrote:
featureless wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:03 am
DispositionMatrix wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:40 am NAGR v. Bonta. Link to the filing is within the tweet:
https://twitter.com/NFGR_Official/statu ... y8D7g&s=19
That's a humdinger. Bonta fucked up. Badly.

For those that are curious, the state doxed just shy of 600,000 people.

Exactly what I wanted to see, a class action law suit against the AG which means the State of California. And punitive (monetary) damages for all c/c and gun owners in the state since we have no idea who now has our information that was collected by the state in their DROS (also FSC) process and county concealed carry information and other databases. Probably looking at billion of dollars in punitive damages, jury selection will be critical don't want a jury with zero gun owners.
Most firearm owners are neither carriers nor tuned into the broader fight to keep firearm ownership legal. I suspect there will be no problem finding jurors in CA sympathetic to the state's desire to punish concealed carriers among both firearm opponents and firearm owners.

I think gun owners will be concerned about their privacy since their home address was released to who knows what criminals and they've now become targets for burglary and home invasion.

NRA sued the state in January 2022 over the release of data to universities.
And just this week Attorney General Bonta declared that the: “DOJ seeks to balance its duties to provide gun violence and firearms data to support research efforts while protecting the personal identifying information in the data the Department collects and maintains.” The court, understandably, relied on those repeated assurances and declined to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the Cal DOJ from releasing gun owners’ information.

But those promises turned out to be empty, and those safeguards turned out to be nonexistent. That is why NRA-ILA asked the court to reconsider its decision on the temporary restraining order. Whether the leak was the result of malice or extreme negligence, the Cal DOJ must be held accountable for its shortcomings.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2022063 ... -data-leak

So FPC and NRA both have lawsuits again CA DOJ over their leaking of private information. The NRA case is Doe vs Bonta.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

35
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:48 am Looks like Californians who aren't special class members can pretty much forget carrying for at least the number of years this spends in litigation after this passes.
SB918 as it stands now:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... ends=false
Thanks for the update, it's still a state senate bill that can be amended in that chamber and then goes to the state assembly and can be amended even more. Newsom will sign whatever crosses his desk, but we'll see what lobbying efforts do to change the bill. And then CRPA, FPC and NRA will threaten more lawsuits, this will take time.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

37
NJ governor Phil Murphy was busy signing new gun bills.
The seven gun safety reform bills include:

A1765/S1893 (McKeon, Atkins, Jasey/Ruiz, Pou) - Allows Attorney General to bring cause of action for certain public nuisance violations arising from sale or marketing of firearms.

A1179/S1204 (Jasey, Swain, Jaffer/Cryan, Zwicker) - Requires firearm owners who become New Jersey residents to obtain firearm purchaser identification card and register handguns acquired out-of-State.

A4367/S2846 (McKeon, Greenwald/Scutari, Cryan) - Upgrades certain crimes related to manufacturing firearms from third degree to second degree.

A4366/S2905 (Atkins, Quijano/Scutari) – Revises definition of destructive device to include certain .50 caliber rifles.

A1302/S2903 (Greenwald, Reynolds-Jackson, Atkins/Cryan) - Regulates sale of handgun ammunition and develops system of electronic reporting of handgun ammunition sales.*

A4370/S2906 (Reynolds-Jackson, Greenwald/Codey) - Requires training for issuance of firearms purchaser identification card and permit to purchase handgun under certain circumstances; provides that firearms purchaser identification card include photograph and thumb print and remain valid for ten years.*

A4368/S2907 (Greenwald, McKeon/Codey) - Requires firearm retailers to sell microstamping-enabled firearms upon determination of availability by AG.
https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/56202 ... 705a.shtml

Gov. Larry Hogan has directed the Maryland State Police to suspend the “good and substantial reason” standard for issuing permits to wear and carry firearms, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down a similar clause in a New York law.

Maryland’s wear and carry permits apply to adults who submit fingerprints, have a “good and substantial reason” for the permit and have completed a state police approved firearms training course. There were 39,797 active concealed carry firearm permits across the state as of July 1, according to state police.

Hogan said in a statement it would be “unconstitutional” to continue enforcing the “good and substantial reason” standard. “I have consistently supported the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms, while enacting responsible and common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill,” he wrote.
https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2022-07- ... un-permits
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

40
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 11:44 am Paladino v. Bruen
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 86.1.0.pdf

This was filed against the "vampire clause" of the new New York carry law that bans carry in/on all private property unless the property owner self-shames with a sign allowing carry.

These will get challenged in court as featureless said. It looks like NY just collected restrictions from every state and put them into the laughable CCIA. Utah has very few restrictions,
Permit holders can not carry a firearm into federal or state restricted areas i.e. any airport secured area, federal facilities, courts, correctional & mental health facilities, law enforcement secured areas, a house of worship or private residence where notice given and/or posted, any secured area in which firearms are prohibited and notice posted, or otherwise prohibited by state of federal law.
Naturally, private property owners may apply whatever restrictions they want. Whether or not these restrictions violate one’s constitutional rights is for the civil courts to decide. But the only statutory restrictions on a permit holder are secured areas such as airports and federal buildings.
https://bci.utah.gov/concealed-firearm/ ... questions/

Some states differentiate between restrictions on permitless carriers and restrictions on licensed concealed carriers, licensees seem to have more freedom. Of course it varies by state.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

43
Now, here's the real load of horseshit. The vast majority of the "sensitive places" pushed by NY and CA we're not so defined by their earlier laws. The new subjective criteria (social media review, interviews) we're not included in the former laws. So, all other legal issues with those aside, how on earth do they figure these new limitations square with text, history and tradition? If the two most restrictive states don't have historic analouges, it just plain and simple isn't constitutional.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

44
featureless wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:47 am Now, here's the real load of horseshit. The vast majority of the "sensitive places" pushed by NY and CA we're not so defined by their earlier laws. The new subjective criteria (social media review, interviews) we're not included in the former laws. So, all other legal issues with those aside, how on earth do they figure these new limitations square with text, history and tradition? If the two most restrictive states don't have historic analouges, it just plain and simple isn't constitutional.
They're buying a few years of even tighter restrictions as retaliation against those who would dare assert their RBA while the new restrictions work their way through the courts.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

45
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:39 am
featureless wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:47 am Now, here's the real load of horseshit. The vast majority of the "sensitive places" pushed by NY and CA we're not so defined by their earlier laws. The new subjective criteria (social media review, interviews) we're not included in the former laws. So, all other legal issues with those aside, how on earth do they figure these new limitations square with text, history and tradition? If the two most restrictive states don't have historic analouges, it just plain and simple isn't constitutional.
They're buying a few years of even tighter restrictions as retaliation against those who would dare assert their RBA while the new restrictions work their way through the courts.
Yup. And that's why it's utter horseshit. It is persecutory, anti constitutional and anti democratic. We'll just go ahead and illegally deny your rights so we can get more donations and votes. Nah, we didn't even bother reading that SCOTUS tripe. Got the cliff notes from CNN tweets. Good enough for government work.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

46
featureless wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:32 pm
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:39 am
featureless wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:47 am Now, here's the real load of horseshit. The vast majority of the "sensitive places" pushed by NY and CA we're not so defined by their earlier laws. The new subjective criteria (social media review, interviews) we're not included in the former laws. So, all other legal issues with those aside, how on earth do they figure these new limitations square with text, history and tradition? If the two most restrictive states don't have historic analouges, it just plain and simple isn't constitutional.
They're buying a few years of even tighter restrictions as retaliation against those who would dare assert their RBA while the new restrictions work their way through the courts.
Yup. And that's why it's utter horseshit. It is persecutory, anti constitutional and anti democratic. We'll just go ahead and illegally deny your rights so we can get more donations and votes. Nah, we didn't even bother reading that SCOTUS tripe. Got the cliff notes from CNN tweets. Good enough for government work.
Yup, CNN is only concerned with quotes that will enrage their center-left base of viewers, who have already decided that guns are evil and no one should have them. They believe that only cops like we saw in the Uvalde video, should have guns and of course criminals will always have guns. We the law abiding citizens should be banned from owning firearms.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

47
Democrats in the Massachusetts House have amended H2046, an IT infrastructure upgrade bill for the judiciary, to include firearm licensure changes, some of which suggest compliance with NYSRPA v. Bruen. There is also a change within the amendment to halve the number of years a license to possess firearms is valid from 6 to 3 years. In addition, the amendment requires interviews for renewals.

GOAL, the state's alleged firearms advocacy group, knew nothing of this amendment until it appeared.

Amendment 13:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/GetAmen ... se/Preview

H5046:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/H5046

Some Massachusetts municipalities already take the better part of a year to complete renewals, so this should help a lot.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

50
Healey said police chiefs would continue to have discretion to decide if a license applicant is “unsuitable” to obtain a gun license, although some experts suggested the Bruen ruling would make this provision ripe for a court challenge.
That sounds a lot like CA's "good character", just another subjective reason to deny a license.
Rep. Paul Frost, an Auburn Republican, said during debate that he is hearing opposition from police chiefs who say requiring an interview every three years, rather than giving an option for an interview every six years, “is going to be an administrative nightmare.” He compared the doubling of the fee to implementing a “poll tax,” since both voting and gun ownership are a constitutional right.
It's an election year and legislators and Maura Healey who is running for governor, are more concerned with placating some voters after Bruen. Push it down the food chain so applications and renewals take months or a year or more.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests