Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I heard that SCOTUS will hear the case in early November. I hope that SCOTUS will look at the equal protection under the law requirement and strike down NYC and other counties may issue stance on 2A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,528 Posts
I would expect either a 6-3 or 5-4 ruling it unconstitutional. New York and other May issue states will need to become Shall issue. I would expect live fire requirements for all new applicants which is required by other states for a Concealed Carry License. I don’t believe SCOTUS will address allowing New York pistol licensees to carry in NYC. I imagine that it will require a special endorsement from the NYPD.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
144 Posts
I hope you are all correct but I am concerned with the Court issuing a narrowly tailored ruling that may not reach the “shall issue” we hope for. The question the Court agreed to answer is: whether the second amendment rights of two specific individuals were violated.

I agree with boosti that if NY becomes a shall issue state Nassau will definitely require a life fire fire safety class. I also don’t think that a Sportsman license will automatically have restrictions removed. I bet we will have to take a course and apply to have restrictions removed. I am thinking of taking the NRA Pistol Basic Course and Instructor Courses just in case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
This is my opinion only:

Training is fine, if you ask me. Of course, the state should pay for the training. It is a Constitutional right and shouldn't have an economic barrier to exercising the right (except for buying the actual gun and ammo, which was traditionally the citizen's responsibility).

I think you should be required to prove that you know how to safely handle a handgun and know the laws before a CCW license. Licensees should be required to pass a written and practical test, with objective standards (ie can draw a gun from the holster without pulling the trigger, demonstrates ability to control muzzle, etc). Maybe home defense can require a safety class as well.

With the prohibitions to CCW and home ownership gone, more people will take classes, which bodes well for the firearm industry. I think all gun ranges and shops will have more business, which means that more people will work in the business. More people will invest in infrastructure like shooting ranges.

Most importantly, when you have more people working in the sector, you will have more votes the right way.

Just my 2 cents worth.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
144 Posts
Great points. I am amazed at the number of folks with zero proficiency but also blame NY’s restrictive environment which makes it not easy for folks to train. I agree with you that the more educated and proficient gun owners the easier it will be to support the 2A efforts.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
This is my opinion only:

Training is fine, if you ask me. Of course, the state should pay for the training. It is a Constitutional right and shouldn't have an economic barrier to exercising the right (except for buying the actual gun and ammo, which was traditionally the citizen's responsibility).

I think you should be required to prove that you know how to safely handle a handgun and know the laws before a CCW license. Licensees should be required to pass a written and practical test, with objective standards (ie can draw a gun from the holster without pulling the trigger, demonstrates ability to control muzzle, etc). Maybe home defense can require a safety class as well.

With the prohibitions to CCW and home ownership gone, more people will take classes, which bodes well for the firearm industry. I think all gun ranges and shops will have more business, which means that more people will work in the business. More people will invest in infrastructure like shooting ranges.

Most importantly, when you have more people working in the sector, you will have more votes the right way.

Just my 2 cents worth.
Great points. I am amazed at the number of folks with zero proficiency but also blame NY’s restrictive environment which makes it not easy for folks to train. I agree with you that the more educated and proficient gun owners the easier it will be to support the 2A efforts.

I believe that both of you are missing the point. If a Constitutionally-protected right can require that you take a course of study or pass a test, of any sort, to determine that you are "qualified" to exercise it, then it is not a Constitutionally-protected right but a privilege, which the licensing official can regulate, in any way which person or organization sees fit.
Think about this alternative: You may not choose a religion or choose to change or abandon it, unless and until you can prove proficiency, in that religion, via classroom work and a written test. You may not speak or present a written opinion, about anything, unless and until you have taken the prescribed classes, then passed a written exam, proving your "proficiency" in that subject. You may not vote, unless and until you have taken the required classes, in Civics, politics, Sociology and Legislative Procedure, then passed the appropriate exam(s), in each of those subjects.
Constitutionally-protected rights are not subject to licensing. Too many of us have been indoctrinated, to the contrary.
Gary
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
144 Posts
Gary,

Legally you are 100% correct and my intention was not to infringe upon a Right. I was just sharing that in NY perhaps trained legal gun owners with CCWs will further the issuance of CCWs by restrictive government agencies and politicians who enact laws with no effect on illegal gun ownership. You are correct that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
And perhaps as I read your comment- why even provide politicians and law enforcement the ability to restrict a Right
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,412 Posts
I 100% agree with Gary in principle. Imagine the uproar there would be if a test (knowledge of the Constitution) was required to vote? Even though I think that would be a good thing the Constitution doesn't require it so adding requirements to exercise other Constitutional rights starts us down the slippery slope of government infringement. On the flip side the seriousness of exercising the right to bear arms should be reinforced by serious consequences if you abuse that right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I believe that both of you are missing the point. If a Constitutionally-protected right can require that you take a course of study or pass a test, of any sort, to determine that you are "qualified" to exercise it, then it is not a Constitutionally-protected right but a privilege, which the licensing official can regulate, in any way which person or organization sees fit.
Think about this alternative: You may not choose a religion or choose to change or abandon it, unless and until you can prove proficiency, in that religion, via classroom work and a written test. You may not speak or present a written opinion, about anything, unless and until you have taken the prescribed classes, then passed a written exam, proving your "proficiency" in that subject. You may not vote, unless and until you have taken the required classes, in Civics, politics, Sociology and Legislative Procedure, then passed the appropriate exam(s), in each of those subjects.
Constitutionally-protected rights are not subject to licensing. Too many of us have been indoctrinated, to the contrary.
Gary

I guess I am on the fringe on this, but I think that you should be required to pass a civics test in order to be allowed to vote. If you cannot pass a simple test, describing the basics of our democracy, then I'm not sure you ought to have voice in representative government. It is too easy for liars and cheats to manipulate the uninformed...just look at the politicians on both sides of the aisle. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "a well informed electorate is a pre-requisite to democracy."


I think that the right to vote is of equal importance to the right to bear arms. I think that the schools should teach simple facts in civics and the Constitution. Students must pass this test in order to vote. For those who immigrate and those citizens who could not pass while in high school, then they too must pass this test (perhaps after school tutorials?). Otherwise, we lose the common bond of democracy. Just my fringe 2 cents...
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
I guess I am on the fringe on this, but I think that you should be required to pass a civics test in order to be allowed to vote. If you cannot pass a simple test, describing the basics of our democracy, then I'm not sure you ought to have voice in representative government. It is too easy for liars and cheats to manipulate the uninformed...just look at the politicians on both sides of the aisle. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "a well informed electorate is a pre-requisite to democracy."


I think that the right to vote is of equal importance to the right to bear arms. I think that the schools should teach simple facts in civics and the Constitution. Students must pass this test in order to vote. For those who immigrate and those citizens who could not pass while in high school, then they too must pass this test (perhaps after school tutorials?). Otherwise, we lose the common bond of democracy. Just my fringe 2 cents...
Wowser:
I understand your thinking, behind wanting an intelligent and informed electorate and, no, it's not fringe thought. That approach would reflect the ideal scenario and, if we had it, the rampant, political chicanery, with which we deal, would not exist but, if you're old enough to remember voting poll tests, as they were administered, especially in the South, right into the 1960s, you'll quickly recall the abuse of them, to be able to prove one's "ability" to vote. There were two versions of the voting test: one each for white people and others. The one, for whites, required little more than the ability to spell one's name, even if only phonetically or verbally or partially or if printed, by the poll test administrator. The test, for all other people, required knowledge, which most PhDs, who majored in history or political science, could not pass. Once you set any form of test, you set the standard for abuse of that test. While Jefferson does speak of democracy, he generally speaks in terms of equality of rights, not necessarily governmental form.

We are fortunate that we do not live in a true democracy. In a true democracy, the majority rules and the rules can change, anytime the majority says they should, forward and backward. We live in a Constitutional Republic, where majority rule is overruled and restricted, by the content of the Constitution.
Gary
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
144 Posts
I like this, an actual discussion where we are sharing different views. I will say what Gary would say- a right granted by the Constitution should not be restricted. So by being a Citizen you should have the right to vote and the right to bear arms, right against unlawful search and seizure …. Intellect is not a pre requisite. If it was then Constitutional rights would depend on IQ and education which basically contradicts the equality the Constitution gives to all Citizens.

I do have concerns about the number of unsafe and immature weapons owners. But I am even more upset that as a former prosecutor, Army Officer and First Responder I am unable to get a CCW in Nassau yet I have one o FL and PA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,528 Posts
The SCOTUS will possibly take two other pro 2A cases. They will decide next month. One is open carry from Hawaii and one from New Jersey similar to the case being heard in November for obtaining a concealed carry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
We are fortunate that we do not live in a true democracy. In a true democracy, the majority rules and the rules can change, anytime the majority says they should, forward and backward. We live in a Constitutional Republic, where majority rule is overruled and restricted, by the content of the Constitution.
Gary
I definitely agree that a Constitutional Republic is far better than the rule of the majority. Look at the parliamentary forms of government. They are ever more restrictive and their citizens lose rights each passing year. Eventually, they become trapped by their government controlled laws and traditions. When they bottle it up for too long, bam, another world war.

Gary, I think your stance certainly is the current way. My main concern is that we’ve forgotten our history and vote based on short term beliefs (ie we havent had a world war in a few years, so no one should own a firearm). They forget the reasons why dictatorships are near impossible in the US...nearly everyone has access to a gun. well, like I said, my thoughts are definitely fringe. :)

btw does everyone see the testosterone ad here? I’m finding it hard (get it?) to type…

134198
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
First things first.... all gun laws are unconstitutional...

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”

The 2nd Amendment and guns rights are not for hunting they are for killing humans before those humans kill you!

Since the Democrats as usual can't create a compelling and reasonably rational argument to disarm innocent Americans, they're going to their tried and true redefining a word to foot their agenda, logical fallacies and the ensuing propaganda to confuse people into thinking that's excellent "commo sense" even when it's anything but.... what is the point of gun control? Gun control is usually sold to the public on grounds of public safety, but evidence for that is essentially non-existent.

Gun controls not supposed to work it’s supposed to punish honest law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.

To ban a gun because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless and that the law will allow them to have only those rights which the lawless allow. Society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the behavior of the law abiding.

The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
— NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA’s American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

It started with the Sullivan Act of 1911, the first law in any state (other than the slave codes) to require a license for mere possession of a pistol, even in the home. That is today’s “premises license,” a license for a person to “have and possess [a pistol or revolver] in his dwelling….” For an all-but-unattainable “carry license,” one must show “proper cause” in the arbitrary mind of an official.

The first person sentenced under the Sullivan Act was a worker named Marino Rossi, who was arrested for carrying a .38-caliber revolver in his hip pocket. The New York Times, in September 1911, reported: “Rossi explained that he was carrying the gun from fear of the Black Hand, and that his friends had warned him to do so in this city. He said that he was in fear of his life. He had no intention of using it wrongfully, and he was an honest working man and desired to know why it was that Black Handers were not arrested for carrying guns as well as law-abiding people.”

While sentencing Rossi to one year in the Sing Sing penitentiary, Judge Warren Foster expressed no concern about the lack of protection for citizens from criminal gangs like the Black Hand; instead, the judge lectured Rossi on the bad customs of Italian immigrants: “You can say ... that it was the custom of yourself as well as your countrymen to carry guns. You say you did not realize that you were breaking the law in so doing. It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country.... I and my colleagues on the bench intend to stamp out this habit, and with this end in view it is our object to let the community know that the violators of the Sullivan law are going to be severely punished.”

Another defendant on the docket that day was Gustav A. Kessler, a night watchman, who “had to work late at night in a dangerous part of the city, and wanted a revolver for protection against gangsters. He said he did not get a permit because he did not feel that he could spare $10 of his small wages to carry a $5 revolver.” He was just another poor workingman left defenseless by the government and then persecuted by the government.

The next day The New York Times praised the one-year prison sentence of Rossi, whose “hot-headed countrymen” customarily carried concealed weapons, adding: “The Judge’s warning to the Italian community was timely and exemplary.” The Times has had a long history of contempt for gun owners in the poorer classes.

A test case was brought challenging the requirement of a license to keep a pistol in the home. As described in People v. Warden of City Prison (1913), Joseph Darling notified the police that he had a pistol at home and had no license, for which he was arrested. His defense was “the inherent and inalienable right to keep and bear arms.”
The court acknowledged New York’s Civil Rights Law, which has a provision much like the Second Amendment, and said that “we fully recognize the proposition that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not created by such declaration. They are of such character as necessarily pertain to free men in a free state.” But they upheld the law anyway, because they felt it regulated rather than prohibited the right. The court added: “If the Legislature had prohibited the keeping of arms, it would have been clearly beyond its power.”

Imagine our Founders’ reaction to a law that limited possession of arms to those with a permit from the government. Now realize that, from there, the places like New York City have pushed the envelope so far that, in the last few decades, we have seen outright bans on handguns and ordinary rifles.

Since the Sullivan Act referred only to firearms that could be concealed on the person, the dissent in the above case noted that it did not apply to “a blunderbuss or a horse pistol,” which were too large to be concealed. He suggested that “the professional criminal will generally violate the act and take his chances of discovery and punishment, while the law-abiding citizen will be obliged to disarm himself of his only effective protection against the predatory classes.”

While World War II raged, New York courts held that they must defer to issuing authorities on whether an applicant for a license to carry a concealed pistol had “proper cause” to utilize their rights. In Moore v. Gallup (1943), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York opined that the right to bear arms, protected by the N.Y. Civil Rights Law, meant the same as the federal Second Amendment. But it added that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States, leaving one to wonder what the New York provision applied to if not to the State.

While holding that the state could ban carrying a pistol without a license, the Court also said that “the Second Amendment created no right to bear arms, a right which long ante-dated the adoption of the Federal Constitution....” If that suggested a natural or common-law right of the individual, the court next added that the Second Amendment’s only purpose is “to enable the Federal Government to maintain the public security.” If that was not enough to discount any personal liberty, the court added that “the arms to which the Second Amendment refers include weapons of warfare to be used by the militia, such as swords, guns, rifles and muskets ... but not pistols,” which “are habitually carried by ... gangsters.”

Yet the case was about a law-abiding citizen and Great War veteran who was appealing the denial of a license to carry a pistol. A friend-of-the-court brief was filed by two gun clubs, and another by the National Rifle Association, represented by Karl T. Frederick, a former Olympic shooter and Harvard Law graduate. The case had nothing to do with “gangsters.” (That seems to be the first NRA amicus brief ever filed in a court.)
The dissent would have held that such construction of the law violated the right to keep and bear arms. It noted the current perceived threat of a foreign invasion, which demonstrated the “need of the citizens to become proficient in the use of firearms....” (German U-boats had sunk 397 ships off America’s coasts, including in New York harbors, in the first six months of 1942.)

The Moore case set the stage for how New York courts would, to this very day, view the incredible shrinking “right of the people” to bear arms not actually to include “the people,” but only an elite endorsed by the authorities.

It bears recalling that there is no municipal liability in New York “for failure to provide special protection to a member of the public who was repeatedly threatened with personal harm and eventually suffered dire personal injuries for lack of such protection.” That was the 1968 ruling in the infamous case of Linda Riss, who was repeatedly denied police protection against threatened harm and who was then viciously attacked. As the dissent pointed out, “in conformity, to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense.... Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.”
Nothing has changed since 1911 when Marino Rossi carried a pistol for protection against the Black Hand, for which he was sentenced to a year in prison. New York’s assurances that it will protect you and you don’t “need” a gun for protection are worthless.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented when the U.S Supreme Court declined to review the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Peruta v. County of San Diego (2016), which upheld California’s “may issue” carry license law. His words should resonate with judges who, like Judge Foster when he sent Rossi to Sing Sing, just don’t care about ordinary people who need to protect themselves from violent crime: “For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”
How Does New York City Get Away With This?

I know most gun owners and gun organizations are not comfortable with Concealed/Open Constitutional Carry (or no CCW permits/licenses required) options. But its just a another form of Gun Control

Concealed weapons permits - what it's like to have your civil liberties/rights licensed much like a privilege.

1. What is a CCW?
a. a permit to carry a concealed weapon is just another way your government attempts to control your behavior. It is a licensing of your right to bear arms, perhaps the only enumerated right that we openly license.

2. What is a CCW supposed to do?
a. the whole idea behind the concealed weapons permit process is to make certain that only the "good guys" are carrying guns and other concealed weapons out there among the rest of us. It is designed to keep guns out of the hands of the "bad guys" and thereby prevent violent crime.

3. Are CCW really needed to help ensure our safety?
a. the whole idea of a concealed weapons permit is absolutely unnecessary because the process only applies to the law abiding. As you'll probably come to agree, the law abiding are the ones who we shouldn't have concern about in the first place, so why try to regulate their actions?

Reminder the answers are coming from a Libertarian/Voluntaryist bent

Gun control has been with us for many generations. A concealed weapons permit is just another form of it; gun control regardless of the intentions, it really only punishes the innocent and law-abiding among us, and does nothing but benefit the criminal-minded.

The idea behind the permit process is to supposedly keep the guns out of the wrong hands. Those that "qualify" and are “allowed permission” should have guns on the street, so why is it that criminals everywhere have guns if they so choose? The answer is simple, they pay for them on the black market. It is so ironic that the criminal underworld operates very much on the basis of free enterprise, whereas the free market economy operated in the light of day has many restrictions that cause it to be not so very free after all.

In other words, the law-abiding are faced with the restrictions such as applications, training, fingerprinting and waiting for approval, and the lawless are not.

Simply put, the law-abiding are the ones that apply for a concealed weapons permit. Even if criminals do apply, they generally won’t be approved (if the process works correctly), so again only the law-abiding will have a permit. The law-abiding are the ones who we should not fear, and yet they are the ones who we are trying to regulate. Criminals are indeed the ones we have something to be concerned about and fear yet they aren't regulated at all; until they commit a crime. While not committing a crime they would appear as any other law-abiding citizen on the street.

Governments are imposing a regulatory burden on the law-abiding. This regulatory burden is indeed a penalty of sorts for being a law-abiding citizen. Criminals has no such regulatory burden, unless they are apprehended during their involvement in a crime and are in possession of a concealed deadly weapon. Though oftentimes these “in possession of” minor-criminal offenses are plea-bargained away in favor of prosecuting the major offenses, or a criminal pleads guilty to the misdemeanor of concealed carry as a lesser offense in order to escape prosecution of the more serious crimes.

And also remember to notify government authorities of your changes of address, and periodically pay a fee to be reissued your permit to carry a concealed weapon. More theft by extortion.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top