Roberts should be a reliable 2nd Amendment guy but his Obamacare ruling has forever made me skeptical. He seems to VERY concerned with the optics of the court and not appearing “political”.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Roberts should be a reliable 2nd Amendment guy but his Obamacare ruling has forever made me skeptical. He seems to VERY concerned with the optics of the court and not appearing “political”.
"A flute without holes, is not a flute. A donut without a hole, is a Danish." - Ty Webb
Senior Member
I would not assume that, she may be back in time.Originally Posted by TMS951
Site Sponsor
There may be more than one going before the court...
https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-...supreme-court/
Gettin' down innagrass.
Let's Go Brandon!
Senior Member
Man, a ruling in favor of GOA regarding NFA sure would be nice. Think I will send a donation over to help in the litigation cost.
Whiskey
May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one
Member
The SC has been looking for a case to rule one carry possession outside the home. This may be a better vehicle than some of the others that have been working or have not made it all the way through the courts. If it falls in our favor I hope it is a broad ruling so that it will affect how states govern carry outside of the home and levels the playing field for people in restricted states such as New York, CA, and other liberal hell holes.
Senior Member
That isn't a very good case at this time. Not against it on the merits, but SCOTUS probably won't take it. They aren't going to leapfrog all kinds of possession, mag and AWB and kill off the NFA. If anything, raising the NFA issue just opens it for a fee adjustment and perhaps more restrictions at the state level.
NFA should be one of the last things to get sorted, not the first. That is if you actually want good outcomes and not just decisions that you can complain about and that we won't get a second bite at.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
Honestly, I don't see this case as advancing firearms rights much because it is very limited in scope.
The case is about people who have Premise Permits for handguns in NYC being able to take those guns shooting at ranges outside of NY City and to legal residencies elsewhere.
A Premise Permit in NYC allows the owner to keep the handgun loaded at home and take the gun shooting to ranges within NYC's 5 boroughs. It must be transported in a locked box with a trigger lock with the ammo in a separate container.
The whole NYC Premise permit is a confusing thing. It is something the average person can get, after spending over $400 in licensing fees and jumping through more hoops than any place else (more on that later). .
You cannot take the gun out of state, and if you try to fly out of state and present the gun and your license at the airport you will be busted and lose your license and firearms. That and not being able to take it to a range outside of NYC is what they are challenging.
This means that you can't take your guns to some nicer ranges that are just outside of NYC, since there are very few ranges in NYC and they tend to be a pain to get to logistically and with parking (assuming that you live in NYC and have a car).
When I lived in NYC decades ago, I lived on the Queens/Long Island border and would take my guns to an indoor range in Nassau County to shoot since that was the easiest range to drive to (about 30 min) and there was always plenty of parking. At that time NYC had a target permit, which allowed you to take the handgun target shooting with no restrictions as to where; but you were required to keep the gun unloaded and locked up at home. If you wanted to keep a gun loaded at home you had to get a premise permit, which at that time allowed you to keep it loaded at home, but only allowed you to take it shooting twice a year after writing the licensing bureau. So they combined the two into a premise permit, but added the restriction that you could not take the gun to a range outside the city. I had my handguns listed on both permits--so I could legally keep them loaded at home and take them to the range whenever I wanted to. At that time there was no restriction on travelling with the handgun to outside ranges or out of state, as long as the gun in a locked case and not loaded.
Just getting a this type of permit is more of a hassle than anyplace else in the US, and this is what should be challenged. First the application fee is over $400.
You are required to provide 3 letters of recommendation from people who have known you for at least 2 years who are not relatives: https://newyorkcityguns.com/function...nce_letter.pdf This is unreasonable. Because of the nature of our society, you may not have three people who have known you at least 2 years who are willing to sign a notorized statement. If you have just moved there you are SOL, because I don't think they can be people from out of state. This alone should be challenged.
Also, you have to provide them a list of anything greater than a parking ticket that you received, along with the date and I believe court record. Even if you have only received a few speeding tickets in your life, it is an undue burden to have to remember the dates and get court records from different places where you may have lived.
I believe you may also have to provide dates and explanations for any time you took a painkiller or sedative. Do they really expect someone who is over 25 to remember all of the dates when they may have been prescribed tylenol 3 for dental work or other things?
Once you have submitted your application it can take a year or more for it to get approved.
I think the above requirements presents an undue burden and should be challenged.
The whole object of this is to get people to take a look at the information required and say ****-it.
If you do get approved you, get a license and a paper called a purchase document, both of which are needed to allow you to purchase a handgun. Once you buy the gun you have to bring it back to One Police Plaza in NYC within 72 hours after purchase so they can "inspect" it and enter the make and serial number onto your license. If you want to buy a second gun, you have to write them requesting a purchase document and specify some info about the gun that you want to buy. You then get a letter telling you that the purchase document has been approved and have to travel to One Police Plaza to pick up the purchase document. You can only get one purchase document every 90 days, and if you want to own more than 3-4 handguns you must buy a safe and show them a receipt for it and pictures of it.
Getting a carry permit is a whole different deal. You have to show that you have a business that makes large bank deposits and provide a tax return for the business six months of of bank deposit or withdrawal slips that show a large amount of cash. Even then, you will typically be limited to carrying the gun only at certain times--like when you are making deposits to the bank or picking up money. You can get a premise permit for your business, but then you are not allowed to carry the gun outside of your business.
There are special Carry permits that famous people, celebrities, and people who can demonstrate some special may be able to get. Retired cops from NYC can get their permits comparatively easily as part of their retirement process.
Last edited by Ed L.; 01-23-19 at 15:30.
Senior Member
What the flying **** did I just read? All of that is real? And people put up with that shit?
Senior Member
People put up with outrageous taxes, living expenses and traffic to live there as well.
It makes me want to crank up Sweet Home Alabama on the way to work this morning.
Andy
Senior Member
Sweet Home Anywhere Else, more like it.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks