Another SCOTUS thread

[ViperTwoSix]

I have a question: SCOTUS ruled that NY state could not be selective in it's CCW requirements, i.e. like requiring a reason. However, I didn't read anything that prevented a state from having no CCW law at all (?). Couldn't a libtard state like NY simply repeal the CCW law and be done with it?

In other words if you have a CCW law it needs to be "shall issue", but what if you didn't have one at all?

If a state has no CCW laws, anyone could carry concealed because there would be nothing that says you can’t. Kind of like Alaska- no CCW required to carry concealed. The only caveat in Alaska is they DO have a law that IF you are carrying concealed and are stopped by LE you are required to inform them immediately. If you fail to inform them, you have violated the law… not for carrying, but for failing to immediately disclose to LE.

NY would implode if they went that route. They are more likely to do what someone else mentioned in a different thread… make mandatory training a requirement for obtaining a CCW, then make the training unobtainable either through cost, availability, or both.

[Brian H]

I have a question: SCOTUS ruled that NY state could not be selective in it's CCW requirements, i.e. like requiring a reason. However, I didn't read anything that prevented a state from having no CCW law at all (?). Couldn't a libtard state like NY simply repeal the CCW law and be done with it?

In other words if you have a CCW law it needs to be "shall issue", but what if you didn't have one at all?

They wouldn't be able to do that, as they need to allow some mechanism for public bearing of arms whether open carry or some CCW framework. This was addressed in a circuit case (Moore v Madigan) where Illinois was required to establish a CCW framework after the court affirmed a right to "bear" arms outside the home (Illinois was the only state without any form of CCW, however limited). Latest court further affirms this and removes the may issue BS.

[SeriousStudent]

Agreed. That ruling might end up being more practically useful than the second amendment case. Thomas and Alito ought to go on our walls like democrats used to put fdr and Kennedy on their walls.

As always, I agree with you. Especially combined with a new House and Senate in January, controlling the budget for those agencies.

"Agency XYZ shall spend no monies in support of program ABC."