NY Already Planning to Nullify Supreme Court Decision

[Artg56]

NYS is basically thumbing their nose at the SC and sticking to the policy of no guns for citizens period. Many of the new “requirements” for a cc permit can and will be ruled unconstitutional but they have bought themselves more time before a challenge is brought.

 

[GEM]

The part of this discussion that confuses me is, did anyone expect New York to react differently? Did anyone think New York would just throw up their hands and suddenly become a Shall Issue state? If you did, go back and read the story of the frog and the scorpion. If you don't like what NY did, and you live in NY, realize you are never going to defeat the urban New York voting block at the ballot box so vote with your feet.

That's why I said in the various threads on this topic, that Clarence and Company should have gamed planned this obvious tactic out and pre-empted it in their decision. I know the lawyer types will say that is legislating from the bench and they can only deal with the issues presented to them - I think that is BS as we know that Scotus is an instrument of partisan social policy nowadays. Maybe that's wrong in the grand separation of powers scheme but that's the way it is and they should act for the reality of defending and enhancing 2A rights. All the prose about how Dumford Bumblehouse carried a cannon in his wagon in 1698 is fine for the law clerks to blather about but they need to deal with the reality. They made it much worse in NY and perhaps other states by ignoring the counterpunch. Clarence hinted at it with mention of sensitive places. Don't ban Manhattan - duh. So they ban ever possible carry locale in the state. Duh.

 

[luzyfuerza]

@GEM , you know as well as I that the next step is for some willing plaintiff to sue the state in Federal court for relief from New York's new requirements. The NYSRPA may be willing to fund the effort. Force a federal district court judge to apply the one-step process the SC laid down. Make him or her choke on Bruen! Request a temporary, and then permanent injunction against these new laws while the lawsuit winds its way through the courts. Appeal to higher courts as necessary.

I would say that the SCOTUS did "game-plan" this process. Its just that their game plan depends on you and your fellow New Yorkers more than you hoped. In the end, its up to "the people" to defend our freedoms today, just as it was in the days of the Founders. If you're personally not willing to be plaintiff, then help find someone who is. Or at the very least contribute to the NYSRPA or whomever else bankrolls the effort until it hurts.

The rest of the country will stand with New Yorkers, if you prove that its worth it to you.

 

[Blue Jays]

NY Governor Kathy Hochul and her fellow travelers know there is zero downside to flouting the SCOTUS.
I will give it to them…they never fail or falter. They rally their media friends. They do not yield.
We would be wise to elevate our own leaders on OUR side to comport themselves the very same way.

 

[Autodidactic]

What a bunch of POS’ in NY politics.

 

[BushMaster-15]

Thumb your nose at the Supreme Court and go to PRISON ,for violating a decreed decision . Whom ever does that and is an elected official will find themselves OUT of office ,as it's a DIRECT contradiction to the oath of office ; during administration swearing in !.

Like the Military swear an oath to defend this Country and abide by it's constitution ! Violations carry SEVERE penalties !.

 

[Basura Blanca]

I would say that the SCOTUS did "game-plan" this process. Its just that their game plan depends on you and your fellow New Yorkers more than you hoped. In the end, its up to "the people" to defend our freedoms today, just as it was in the days of the Founders.

We've been in this Jim Crow stage of things since Heller. The states resisting the tide aren't going to let up just because. It will take some level of civil disobedience to make the real changes necessary, or at least to be the catalyst to speed up the process. It took around a century to get to Brown v. Board of Education. That's the reality we're probably facing and I've resigned myself to not see a conclusion to this in my lifetime.

On the other hand, we can't go it alone. This is our opportunity to bring people into the fold who are sympathetic to the concept of rights, which is oddly not everyone in the U.S., but who have no direct vested interest in the outcome (i.e. non-gun owners). Without broader public support, it's going to be a long ride.

 

[Archie]

A number of men from another time said "The cost of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance". Thomas Jefferson quoted it, but the origin is vague. Still, who can deny it?
Keep watching, keep voting, keep talking sense to those you meet.
No coasting.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Again this is not going to stand. As soon as Hochel signs it. There will be lawsuits filed. What they are trying to pull is outrageous.

 

[230RN]

Plan 2 Live said,

"If you don't like what NY did, and you live in NY, realize you are never going to defeat the urban New York voting block at the ballot box so vote with your feet."

Yes, "tyranny of the majority" again.

I am of two minds with respect to "voting with your feet."

Yes, it's personally good to get out from under onerous conditions, but you have to remember that the architects of those conditions are always following you.

Sometimes rights have to be fought for right there, right then, or your personal struggle will only change locale.

Terry, 230RN

"A democracy can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury.— Alexander Fraser Tytler"

(EDITED: Typo)

 

[DoubleMag]

...counterpunch. Clarence hinted at it with mention of sensitive places. Don't ban Manhattan - duh. So they...

I looked at the verbage as, Justice Thomas made an extremely short list of so-called sensitive places, Breyer dissented but, but, BUT...but Breyers list did NOT make the grade.

 

[wbm]

Keep watching, keep voting, keep talking sense to those you meet.
No coasting.

+1


Another man from another time said "Unless the Lord keep the city the watchman is awake in vain."

 

[BushMaster-15]

Again this is not going to stand. As soon Hochel signs it. There will be lawsuits filed. What they are trying to pull is outrageous.

It's no different than California ,stall delay tie it up in court , it's what lefties do when they dislike any decision which goes against their 56 different gender philosophy !.

 

[Roverguy]

Hochul is following the lead of the Father of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson, whose alleged response to Worcester vs Georgia was “Justice Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”, in recognition that the judicial branch has no effective means of enforcing its decisions, particularly when the Justice Dept will not do so.

New York Democrats know full well that several of the measures they have adopted to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling are unconstitutional. But it will take time for those measures to be overturned and, in the mean time, they will constitute significant barriers to the legal concealed carry of firearms, which is their objective.

 

[0ne3]

IMHO, the justices, knew what they were doing. Seems as though every time a law is passed, it is stopped short. They are not that nieve, to think thing would go smooth. Ploitics is politics, no matter how you cut it.

 

[SSN Vet]

I fail to believe that the NY politico ideologues are actually stupid enough to really think this will protect anyone...

Rather, I think it's all about their parties political power and ability to implement their leftist, anti-America agenda. They simply play the 2A issue (just like abortion and immigration) like a fiddle to pander up the votes to stay in power.

 

[GEM]

Neither party really wants to solve the social issues debates in the country as it will stop the checks flowing in and the hysterical advertising for Candidate Nuts for the Red Side and Candidates Nuts for the Blue Side.

Basic principle - government should stay out of our crotch and holsters. Mind you own business on sexual and firearms decisions.

 

[F-111 John]

I looked at the verbiage as, Justice Thomas made an extremely short list of so-called sensitive places, Breyer dissented but, but, BUT...but Breyers list did NOT make the grade.

And if you carry on private property that is not clearly marked "concealed carry allowed" it is a felony if caught and convicted, making the violator an instant prohibited person.

That alone will have the effect of deterring most people from even applying for an unrestricted license.

 

[GEM]

Exactly, it was a reversal of the strategy of allowing ban signs. Really clever and was thought out to be ready for the decision. Outwitted Clarence and company.

 

[Will Munny]

I said this is exactly what would happen. That the court has no means of enforcement, and only a powerful executive and legislative branch willing to use that power can make NY obey the ruling.

 

[Speedo66]

I said this is exactly what would happen. That the court has no means of enforcement, and only a powerful executive and legislative branch willing to use that power can make NY obey the ruling.

Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi? Probably not.

 

[hso]

There are already constitutional questions about these new proposed restrictions. CBS 6’s Anne McCloy asked the governor about pushback, from those who say ramping up laws on legal gun owners won't stop illegal activity.

Anne: Do you have the numbers to show that it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes? Because the lawful gun owner will say that you’re attacking the wrong person, that it’s really the people getting the guns illegally that are causing the violence not the people going and getting the permit legally. Do you have the numbers?

Hochul: I don’t need to have numbers. I don’t need to have a data point to say this. I know that I have a responsibility of this state to have sensible gun safety laws and this one was not devised by the Hochul administration, it comes out of an administration from 1908 in our state, so that’s what the Supreme Court has attacked. I don’t need a data point to say I have a responsibility to protect the people of this state.

 

[Roverguy]

Perhaps more for the legal forum, but I wonder if someone could explain what recourse to mandamus would be available to third parties to address these rules and its likelihood of effect?