Thank goodness criminals will totally behave in those places and this won't just make such places easier targets! If it was at all possible for people to just say no a law then there would be so much trouble there might be some strongly worded letters written about things!
/distant summer burning and gunshot noises from Chicago
So I think all of these places will fail under strict scrutiny:
Times Square; Public transit; Sports arenas; Parks; Libraries; Government buildings; Playgrounds Entertainment venues; Protests Places of worship Businesses that sell alcohol
Those places are simply too public, and banning guns from them is just an attempt to ban guns in general. It also violates the Constitutional right of those businesses to ALLOW guns.
The following places I think fail strict scrutiny because they are opt-out instead of opt-in. Opt-in MIGHT pass scrutiny, but opt-out certainly does not:
Private businesses, except those that post prominent signage
I think if you want to draft as restrictive a law as possible, you would need to simply allow private businesses to ban guns on their premises, and to ban guns only in places like "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses", not the DMV.
NY already tried to argue in Bruen that it should be able to ban guns really broadly under the "sensitive places" rule, and the Court told them NO.
But the Court did not explicitly define what places were and were not "sensitive", so NY is coming back playing the little game of trying to list ALL the places and see what they can get away with.
For anyone that knows NYC this is pretty much a ban on guns. There are so many parks in NYC that you can technically pass through one while crossing the street.
Also if you're in Manhattan there is always some sort of protest going on. So come out of your apartment building and you might just walk into a protest.
Government buildings, sports arenas, entertainment venues, libraries, businesses that’s sell alcohol, usually all have signs posted saying you can’t carry into them anyway.
I wish the Supreme Court could fast track a case that is clearly about a law that states like New York pass in retaliation of losing a court case.
Among other information, potential firearm owners would be asked to divulge all social media accounts maintained over the past three years as well as provide references attesting to their “good moral character.”
Just leave both sections blank. "shall issue" is now a Constitutional right. New York can't deny your application.
Permit applicants will also have to complete at least 16 hours of in-person training
Shit like this is just to annoy people, but it won't stop anyone.
Weapons will also be barred from places of worship, public transit, sports arenas, parks, libraries, government buildings, playgrounds, entertainment venues, protests and businesses that serve alcohol, among other venues.
"sensitive places" in Bruen were only "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses". Apparently New York REALLY wants the Supreme Court to have to strike down their laundry list of "sensitive places" under strict scrutiny.
I hope this results in SCOTUS getting so pissed that they decide in favor of nationwide constitutional carry as the only way to go and also strike down the 1934 National Firearms Act while they're at it, just to spite New York & California as hard they did the Dobbs leaker. (Or as hard as they did New York & California when they killed the former's Sullivan Act with Bruen just now, for that matter)
So, they want to head back to the Supreme Court I see. I'm actually curious to see how badly Clarence Thomas ass rapes them for having to hear a third case about guns from NY.
Eh, neither state has any incentive to do anything other than keep trying various flavours of this until they find one that sticks. They're burning through taxpayer cash, but do you seriously expect CA and NY to give a second's thought to that?
Well, they played a game to moot the last NYSRPA case because they were afraid of what just happened in Bruen happening.
The more cases that go to the SC, the more damage they can do to whatever anti-gun BS CA and their ilk are trying. At least with the current composition they don't want cases going back to the SC.
The rural areas are better, but the backwash from the cities is extreme. Then there's the college system, which moves the urbanite students into rural red voting districts and turns them purple.
I don't mind this. I'm happy for the court to be challenged on occasion. Now all we need is to let the republicans in the rest of the state explicitly reject the state law. Turning it into a major political issue, and making gains in New York state possible.
To clarify, the special locations the NY bill bans guns from are:
I'm reminded of that line from The Incredibles - when everywhere is "special", nowhere is...
Thank goodness criminals will totally behave in those places and this won't just make such places easier targets! If it was at all possible for people to just say no a law then there would be so much trouble there might be some strongly worded letters written about things!
/distant
summerburning and gunshot noises from Chicago"OK."
/sips tea
So I think all of these places will fail under strict scrutiny:
Those places are simply too public, and banning guns from them is just an attempt to ban guns in general. It also violates the Constitutional right of those businesses to ALLOW guns.
The following places I think fail strict scrutiny because they are opt-out instead of opt-in. Opt-in MIGHT pass scrutiny, but opt-out certainly does not:
I think if you want to draft as restrictive a law as possible, you would need to simply allow private businesses to ban guns on their premises, and to ban guns only in places like "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses", not the DMV.
"We're not banning guns. It's just that some places are so public that we have to ban guns."
NY already tried to argue in Bruen that it should be able to ban guns really broadly under the "sensitive places" rule, and the Court told them NO.
But the Court did not explicitly define what places were and were not "sensitive", so NY is coming back playing the little game of trying to list ALL the places and see what they can get away with.
More like "When everywhere is gun-free, nowhere is"
for criminals
For anyone that knows NYC this is pretty much a ban on guns. There are so many parks in NYC that you can technically pass through one while crossing the street.
Also if you're in Manhattan there is always some sort of protest going on. So come out of your apartment building and you might just walk into a protest.
Government buildings, sports arenas, entertainment venues, libraries, businesses that’s sell alcohol, usually all have signs posted saying you can’t carry into them anyway.
I wish the Supreme Court could fast track a case that is clearly about a law that states like New York pass in retaliation of losing a court case.
Apparently not good enough. They want to put the burden on businesses that support 2A.
For Frank James' victims it was 100%.
A woman was recorded by several people being sexually assaulted on a subway platform... so yes.
The Supreme Court just banned shit like this: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
Just leave both sections blank. "shall issue" is now a Constitutional right. New York can't deny your application.
Shit like this is just to annoy people, but it won't stop anyone.
"sensitive places" in Bruen were only "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses". Apparently New York REALLY wants the Supreme Court to have to strike down their laundry list of "sensitive places" under strict scrutiny.
I hope this results in SCOTUS getting so pissed that they decide in favor of nationwide constitutional carry as the only way to go and also strike down the 1934 National Firearms Act while they're at it, just to spite New York & California as hard they did the Dobbs leaker. (Or as hard as they did New York & California when they killed the former's Sullivan Act with Bruen just now, for that matter)
Yes, yes, I like, I like.
Yes, and how long did it take? The gun grabbers will get another easy 20 years of withholding rights from people who have no means of fighting back.
The left has figured out that they can do whatever they please until the referee blows the whistle.
Not long at all, now that it's an issue of public importance and is high profile. It will get fast tracked.
If they get away with this with the 2nd amendment you can bet they'll try it with the 1st.
So, they want to head back to the Supreme Court I see. I'm actually curious to see how badly Clarence Thomas ass rapes them for having to hear a third case about guns from NY.
Eh, neither state has any incentive to do anything other than keep trying various flavours of this until they find one that sticks. They're burning through taxpayer cash, but do you seriously expect CA and NY to give a second's thought to that?
Well, they played a game to moot the last NYSRPA case because they were afraid of what just happened in Bruen happening.
The more cases that go to the SC, the more damage they can do to whatever anti-gun BS CA and their ilk are trying. At least with the current composition they don't want cases going back to the SC.
This is well over the line.
Are there no patriots left in New York?
The cities are rotten as fuck.
The rural areas are better, but the backwash from the cities is extreme. Then there's the college system, which moves the urbanite students into rural red voting districts and turns them purple.
State's conservatives are under siege.
Unenforcable. Flood of malicious state persecution lawsuits inbound.
sounds unconstitutional.
NY, and every connection to it, can crawl right up inside O'Bidengs arse and fester there, forever.
How long until the first lawsuit?
What happens if you have no social media? I don't.
Also isn't that a breach of privacy which was the same argument for Roe VS Wade?
"2nd Amendment, what's that? 1st Amendment? Never heard of it."
Supreme court:
They're not even gonna grab the bike first.
When you put in the cheat code for the fucking tank right after the cutscene.
I don't mind this. I'm happy for the court to be challenged on occasion. Now all we need is to let the republicans in the rest of the state explicitly reject the state law. Turning it into a major political issue, and making gains in New York state possible.
Fuck New York city.. In fact fuck all democrat crypts, they all gone collapse anyway.