Supreme Court strikes down NY Concealed Gun Law !! - NYSRPA v Bruen

[Pranqster]

Leftists always insist on being proven wrong in court.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Originally Posted by Pranqster

Leftists always insist on being proven wrong in court.

Yeah?

And after they've exhausted ALL of their appeals which includes shopping for sympathetic judges do they just go home and take their 'L' with grace and humility?

Nope

They act like the spoiled children that they are, holding their breath until they turn blue [is that how the democrats got their party color?] and whining that the judicial system is unfair and [wait for it] RACIST!

And after all of the time and money wasted with dragging mostly frivolous cases through court do they abide by the decisions?

Again nope

As we see in NY state/city they marginally abide by the decision while doing everything they can to bypass and undermine the 'spirit' of the decision because, again, anything that they don't like is unfair and [you guessed it] RACIST...

And here's the supporting document :

"Politicians Defy the Supreme Court's Ruling on the Right To Bear Arms"

https://reason.com/2022/07/13/politi...-to-bear-arms/

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by press1280

Why would appointments be needed? Wasn't that to determine your GC?

Appointments are now for the purpose of determining your Good Moral Character, which has easily replaced the former standard of Good Cause. Because this undefined standard was not addressed by SCOTUS, the old “May issue” is certainly going to continue. And on top of that, new, unchallenged + undefined criteria will continue to be brought fourth to further deny/delay constitutional rights. Another decade or two ought to get it going.

[bigdaddyz1776]

Originally Posted by Oxnard_Montalvo

Yeah?

And after they've exhausted ALL of their appeals which includes shopping for sympathetic judges do they just go home and take their 'L' with grace and humility?

Nope

They act like the spoiled children that they are, holding their breath until they turn blue [is that how the democrats got their party color?] and whining that the judicial system is unfair and [wait for it] RACIST!

And after all of the time and money wasted with dragging mostly frivolous cases through court do they abide by the decisions?

Again nope

As we see in NY state/city they marginally abide by the decision while doing everything they can to bypass and undermine the 'spirit' of the decision because, again, anything that they don't like is unfair and [you guessed it] RACIST...

And here's the supporting document :

"Politicians Defy the Supreme Court's Ruling on the Right To Bear Arms"

https://reason.com/2022/07/13/politi...-to-bear-arms/

Well the only way to hold them to account, is if a Republican administration in the future is willing to do it.

This isn't the first time that Democrats have gotten mad and tried to defy SCOTUS like they did with Brown v. Board of Education but in the long run, they would go on to lose.

It should not be surprising to see their reactions as they seem to be shocked at how hard Thomas went in Bruen beyond all expectations even for 2A advocates.

It is interesting to now how the Democrats claim to talk about Democracy all time while still keeping the "superdelegate" system and run in a top down manner. As in telling their own voters over how things will really be done.

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

Tim’s a smart guy, and what he states is partially true, but to get the full picture you need to understand where the ideas and resources for leftism (as opposed to totalitarian regimes) originate. It comes, and always has, from European oligarchy, and the time period after WWII saw European power diminished to a capacity that couldn’t effectively interfere in U.S. affairs. It wasn’t until twenty years later and untold billions injected into European reconstruction that the trend reestablished itself and returned to causing confusion and mayhem in American academic institutions. This later bled to other aspects of culture and life.

Brussels isn’t the seat of the EU by random chance. After Napoleon wrested control of the continent from the Vatican, that power was distributed, but ultimately reconstituted in the continental oligarchy that ran through Belgium.

To this day the U.S. is a puppet of European interests, see Russian gas hijinks, Soros and WEF and our responses as only the latest display of this.

Well there is that high level of love for the British way of life and Western Europe as well in general, for a lot of elites more on the Democrat side than Republican side overall.

[bigdaddyz1776]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Well the only way to hold them to account, is if a Republican administration in the future is willing to do it.

Wow....some people never learn...

I am aware of how much of a disappointment is the GOP on the 2A.

They are the only other major power center that has the capability.

However their willpower or goals is probably not even there.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Well the only way to hold them to account, is if a Republican administration in the future is willing to do it.

Wow....some people never learn...

It all depends if the 'republicans' are those who haven't been corrupted by the 'inside the beltway crowd' or those who have been [aka rino's]

But this isn't all that different than what the democrats are facing with their 'moderates' vs the 'young pioneers' [progressive 'new' democrats]

[OCEquestrian]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

The Republican Party is a progressive neo-liberal statist party.

Was founded as such, has behaved as such, and continues to behave as such.

They love gun control just like any other statist party.

They literally cheered on Brown's murderous rampage in the South that further aggravated North/South relations proceeding the Civil War. You are really holding Republicans responsible for something that happened 160 years ago?

They love to wax poetic about the 2A...it's what you see in the Congressional and State Legislative voting records that reveal the truth. That may be but show me a anti gun law thought up and introduced by a Republican!

=8-|

So you either vote democrat or libertarian which means you are giving the elections to the democrats, al la the libertarian vote in Georgia gave control of the Senate and the US Government to the democrats in 2020.

[Trump1]

SCOTUS' New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen decision was great because it eliminated Intermediate Scrutiny and tossed out "proper cause." Unfortunately, in my opinion, the decision didn't go far enough.

I understand that SCOTUS was to decide whether "proper cause” to carry a firearm outside of their home for self-defense is Constitutional. Unlike liberal judicial activists, they stuck to their mandate and didn't expand beyond the "proper cause" issue. Too bad.

It's a shame that NYRPA didn't challenge the "Proper Cause" and the whole licensing scheme.

I don't need a government permission slip to practice free speech. I don't need a government permission slip to exercise my religion. Why do I need a government permission slip to exercise my Constitutional Right to self defense outside my home?

In my opinion, the whole CCW licensing scheme is unconstitutional. If one can legally own a firearm, then one can conceal or open carry outside the home provide they pass the shooting proficiency test that the LASD now uses.

Restrictions? Well, maybe secured airport areas and court houses, but not much more. Now we have to wait another decade or two to decide the "moral character" and sensitive areas issues. Hopefully at that time, we can also challenge the whole shall issue scheme. God knows what the makeup of SCOTS will be at that time. A liberal leaning SCOTUS will no doubt expand it's mandate and could deal a blow to the Second Amendment. The fight is not over. It's just begun.

[marcusrn]

Trump1, strong ataboy with that whole LACOUNTY Commando carry thing. I was born in LA and I've CCW with and without formal LTC since 1984. You go ahead on Bro Montana. The people in LA and SF should know that thousands of citizens will do the right thing and not wait for Sheriffs and DAs to take time from their buggery, fvcery and general grabassery to accomodate us.It's just a formality! I'll bet you read Thomas Paine on your days off? Have Mexicans ever asked to cross the border? Have hippies ever asked to smoke pot? Look how thats worked for them. Now they pay illegal Mexicans to come and vote and they give hippies free interest business loans to grow reef! What a world and we worry about formal licensing of a G lock burner!!!

[EM2]

Originally Posted by Trump1

SCOTUS' New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen decision was great because it eliminated Intermediate Scrutiny and tossed out "proper cause." Unfortunately, in my opinion, the decision didn't go far enough.

I understand that SCOTUS was to decide whether "proper cause” to carry a firearm outside of their home for self-defense is Constitutional. Unlike liberal judicial activists, they stuck to their mandate and didn't expand beyond the "proper cause" issue. Too bad.

It's a shame that NYRPA didn't challenge the "Proper Cause" and the whole licensing scheme.

I don't need a government permission slip to practice free speech. I don't need a government permission slip to exercise my religion. Why do I need a government permission slip to exercise my Constitutional Right to self defense outside my home?

In my opinion, the whole CCW licensing scheme is unconstitutional. If one can legally own a firearm, then one can conceal or open carry outside the home provide they pass the shooting proficiency test that the LASD now uses.

Restrictions? Well, maybe secured airport areas and court houses, but not much more. Now we have to wait another decade or two to decide the "moral character" and sensitive areas issues. Hopefully at that time, we can also challenge the whole shall issue scheme. God knows what the makeup of SCOTS will be at that time. A liberal leaning SCOTUS will no doubt expand it's mandate and could deal a blow to the Second Amendment. The fight is not over. It's just begun.

You were doing good, then everything came apart.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[R Dale]

Originally Posted by Trump1

SCOTUS' New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen decision was great because it eliminated Intermediate Scrutiny and tossed out "proper cause." Unfortunately, in my opinion, the decision didn't go far enough.

I understand that SCOTUS was to decide whether "proper cause” to carry a firearm outside of their home for self-defense is Constitutional. Unlike liberal judicial activists, they stuck to their mandate and didn't expand beyond the "proper cause" issue. Too bad.

It's a shame that NYRPA didn't challenge the "Proper Cause" and the whole licensing scheme.

I don't need a government permission slip to practice free speech. I don't need a government permission slip to exercise my religion. Why do I need a government permission slip to exercise my Constitutional Right to self defense outside my home?

In my opinion, the whole CCW licensing scheme is unconstitutional. If one can legally own a firearm, then one can conceal or open carry outside the home provide they pass the shooting proficiency test that the LASD now uses.

Restrictions? Well, maybe secured airport areas and court houses, but not much more. Now we have to wait another decade or two to decide the "moral character" and sensitive areas issues. Hopefully at that time, we can also challenge the whole shall issue scheme. God knows what the makeup of SCOTS will be at that time. A liberal leaning SCOTUS will no doubt expand it's mandate and could deal a blow to the Second Amendment. The fight is not over. It's just begun.

You are correct the fight has just begun but in the interim while we wait years for new court cases to be heard the anti gun laws will become more strict and people than can currently carry wont be able to.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Trump1

I don't need a government permission slip to practice free speech. I don't need a government permission slip to exercise my religion. Why do I need a government permission slip to exercise my Constitutional Right to self defense outside my home?

In my opinion, the whole CCW licensing scheme is unconstitutional.

That's not entirely accurate.

You do need government permission for many elements of free speech, most notably for large organized gatherings. You do need government slip to exercise your religion for free (you have to file tax documents to get correct status). And the type of "government permission" for CCW that this decision forces is similar to those for 1A in that it's not really a permission, but an administrative document. The subjective is taken out of consideration, and not just for the "good cause" but for any subjective aspect of issuance.

In fact, if you think that only people who can own guns should be able to carry them, you already do understand that there are prohibited persons, so you understand that there is a place for administrative document that confirms one is not a prohibited person. The idea in this court opinion is precisely that ordinary people must be able to carry, which is not your "permission slip" in traditional sense, but a checklist of requirements that can eliminate certain people based on objective criteria.

And, carrying and potentially using a firearm in public can certainly be conditioned upon a level of proficiency that would minimize potential harm to the innocent people in case of confrontation. My civil rights need to be squared with others' civil rights when they start overlapping. It would be no good to have the right to carry, but no right to engage anyone because I cannot do it safely enough. If I'm attacked, I can defend against that attack but I cannot endanger others who have nothing to do with me or the attack, right?

Even the act of carrying can be regulated to make it safe *for others*. Mexican carry - no-go. Carrying in hand - no-go. Pointing the gun around - no-go. It's all regulations that are permissible and that will certainly remain.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by IVC

That's not entirely accurate.

You do need government permission for many elements of free speech, most notably for large organized gatherings. You do need government slip to exercise your religion for free (you have to file tax documents to get correct status). And the type of "government permission" for CCW that this decision forces is similar to those for 1A in that it's not really a permission, but an administrative document. The subjective is taken out of consideration, and not just for the "good cause" but for any subjective aspect of issuance.

In fact, if you think that only people who can own guns should be able to carry them, you already do understand that there are prohibited persons, so you understand that there is a place for administrative document that confirms one is not a prohibited person. The idea in this court opinion is precisely that ordinary people must be able to carry, which is not your "permission slip" in traditional sense, but a checklist of requirements that can eliminate certain people based on objective criteria.

And, carrying and potentially using a firearm in public can certainly be conditioned upon a level of proficiency that would minimize potential harm to the innocent people in case of confrontation. My civil rights need to be squared with others' civil rights when they start overlapping. It would be no good to have the right to carry, but no right to engage anyone because I cannot do it safely enough. If I'm attacked, I can defend against that attack but I cannot endanger others who have nothing to do with me or the attack, right?

Even the act of carrying can be regulated to make it safe *for others*. Mexican carry - no-go. Carrying in hand - no-go. Pointing the gun around - no-go. It's all regulations that are permissible and that will certainly remain.

I’m a staunch advocate of the 2A but I have seen some people in my CCW classes that have convinced me that you must demonstrate some proficiency with a handgun before you're permitted to carry one. So I’m not at all against permitted carry. I am against having show cause, pay an exorbitant processing fee and lengthily wait times.

[Trump1]

Originally Posted by marcusrn

Trump1, strong ataboy with that whole LACOUNTY Commando carry thing. I was born in LA and I've CCW with and without formal LTC since 1984. You go ahead on Bro Montana. The people in LA and SF should know that thousands of citizens will do the right thing and not wait for Sheriffs and DAs to take time from their buggery, fvcery and general grabassery to accomodate us.It's just a formality! I'll bet you read Thomas Paine on your days off? Have Mexicans ever asked to cross the border? Have hippies ever asked to smoke pot? Look how thats worked for them. Now they pay illegal Mexicans to come and vote and they give hippies free interest business loans to grow reef! What a world and we worry about formal licensing of a G lock burner!!!

Actually, I do have a copy of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense."

[bigdaddyz1776]

How dare someone with a CCW stop a mass shooter.

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/st...79793575948288

Attachment 1103191

https://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/st...22545080369153

Attachment 1103192

https://twitter.com/kollarjustin/sta...32235905863680

Attachment 1103193

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

I’m a staunch advocate of the 2A but I have seen some people in my CCW classes that have convinced me that you must demonstrate some proficiency with a handgun before you're permitted to carry one. So I’m not at all against permitted carry. I am against having show cause, pay an exorbitant processing fee and lengthily wait times.

I do not disagree with your premise, having observed similar proficiency deficits myself. However, neither you nor I were there to debate the construction of the constitution, let alone write the 2A. The amendment makes no allowance for a proficiency requirement. Similar to the right to vote - for better or worse...

In supporting the 2A, it is necessary to take the good with the bad. For what it's worth, the person in my class was disabled and had essential tremor. Would I want to be around him when he pulls out that gun? Nope. Would I want to restrict his ability to carry it? No again.

[Pranqster]

Originally Posted by Oxnard_Montalvo

Yeah?

And after they've exhausted ALL of their appeals which includes shopping for sympathetic judges do they just go home and take their 'L' with grace and humility?

Nope

They act like the spoiled children that they are, holding their breath until they turn blue [is that how the democrats got their party color?] and whining that the judicial system is unfair and [wait for it] RACIST!

And after all of the time and money wasted with dragging mostly frivolous cases through court do they abide by the decisions?

Again nope

As we see in NY state/city they marginally abide by the decision while doing everything they can to bypass and undermine the 'spirit' of the decision because, again, anything that they don't like is unfair and [you guessed it] RACIST...

And here's the supporting document :

"Politicians Defy the Supreme Court's Ruling on the Right To Bear Arms"

https://reason.com/2022/07/13/politi...-to-bear-arms/

Even if they dont agree to it or abide by the rulings, theyve still been proven wrong in court.
Youre arguing a different point, that they ignore the ruling. that is a different statement, which I did not claim.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by IVC

That's not entirely accurate.

You do need government permission for many elements of free speech, most notably for large organized gatherings.

Yes, because those elements conflict with other fundamental rights.

With what rights does carry itself, when done safely (e.g., with a holstered weapon) conflict with? None is the answer. Carrying simply means you have the weapon available to you in case of confrontation. Carrying by itself endangers nobody.

You do need government slip to exercise your religion for free (you have to file tax documents to get correct status).

That's not a restriction on individual exercise of religion, it's a requirement for a religious organization that brings in income to show an exemption from paying taxes on that income. So once again, that's not the same thing at all.

And the type of "government permission" for CCW that this decision forces is similar to those for 1A in that it's not really a permission, but an administrative document.

That's irrelevant. Either you can exercise the right or you can't. If you can't exercise the right without getting the government's assent, which is what a CCW is, then your rights are being infringed precisely because you can't exercise your rights. Why? Because a right is precisely something that you can partake of despite the government's preference. To insist on government assent as a precondition of exercise is to turn the right into a privilege, even if it is an objectively meted one.

The subjective is taken out of consideration, and not just for the "good cause" but for any subjective aspect of issuance.

That may be. But that's not what matters. What matters is whether or not the government prevents your exercise of the right. If it does in such a way that isn't consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation, then it infringes upon it. If it doesn't, then it doesn't infringe upon it. And the nature of a required CCW is that the government does prevent your exercise of it, until the point where you have satisfied the government's requirements, whatever they may be.

The only thing that removal of the subjective requirements does is force the government to limit its requirements to those that are objective in nature. But the fact that your exercise is prevented by the government until you satisfy its requirements remains a fact. And that means that infringement remains a fact, absent a showing that the government's action is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.



Now, there is a way around this which satisfies the purposes that a CCW exists for, as you described: the penalty for carrying without a CCW is to be forced to take the required training and pass the appropriate checks upon arrival at the detention facility, and if you pass then you get your CCW right then and there and are free to leave. If you fail then you suffer the full consequences of the law that would apply to a prohibited person.


But I would argue that even that is worthless. Why? Because the prohibited status of an individual is subject to change, and possession of a CCW only shows that you weren't prohibited at time of issuance. This means that the prohibited status of an individual has to be checked in real time anyway, irrespective of the possession of a CCW. But that renders the CCW irrelevant for separating those who are prohibited from those who aren't.

That leaves training. While training is good, and any conscientious person will get it, I know of nothing that indicates a substantial statistical difference between states that require training and those that don't as regards firarm-related accidental injuries or deaths. And in any case, if a state is serious about training, then it will make firearms training part of the mandatory public school curriculum.


So the bottom line is this: a CCW requirement is still an infringement upon the right, even if it is given to those who meet certain objective requirements. This is no different from driving. If carry is considered a right even in the face of a CCW requirement, then driving is likewise actually a right because it, too, involves only objective criteria for the necessary license.

One last thing: a carry license is most certainly not something that is part of this nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation, and it's difficult (likely impossible) to see how it's consistent with that tradition. As such, the requirement for such a license is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, period. That's not something that was decided in this case, because the plaintiffs didn't challenge it. But that doesn't mean it's not vulnerable to later challenge.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

Yes, because those elements conflict with other fundamental rights.

With what rights does carry itself, when done safely (e.g., with a holstered weapon) conflict with? None is the answer. Carrying simply means you have the weapon available to you in case of confrontation. Carrying by itself endangers nobody.

I appreciate that you are making this point, although I am concerned it is so misunderstood as to require continual reinforcement.

I was taught that a man's right to extent his fist is limited where upon it comes across another man's nose.
That the government restricts the reach of one's fist in this manner is no infringement upon one's rights, because no one has the right to punch another in the nose.

It really is a simple concept, rights can be limited, but ONLY when the manner of exercise of the right interferes with someone else's rights.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by EM2

I appreciate that you are making this point, although I am concerned it is so misunderstood as to require continual reinforcement.

I was taught that a man's right to extent his fist is limited where upon it comes across another man's nose.
That the government restricts the reach of one's fist in this manner is no infringement upon one's rights, because no one has the right to punch another in the nose.

It really is a simple concept, rights can be limited, but ONLY when the manner of exercise of the right interferes with someone else's rights.

Actually "rights" are limited by the relative power of those claiming the right and those attempting to deny the right. As an example, what rights would you have if you were looking down the barrel of my 44Mag revolver? I suggest only those that I was willing to recognize that you have. The reverse is also true. The only rights I would have looking down the barrel of your 12ga are the rights you were willing to recognize that I have. Thus, my point is that the only rights we have are those that we are willing to afford to others and our power to enforce our agreements to recognize the rights we agree to grant to each other. And in enacting the 2nd Amendment our forefathers sought to guarantee that we would always have the power to enforce our agreements to recognize the rights we agree to grant to each other.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyz1776

How dare someone with a CCW stop a mass shooter.

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/st...79793575948288

Attachment 1103191

https://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/st...22545080369153

Attachment 1103192

https://twitter.com/kollarjustin/sta...32235905863680

Attachment 1103193

Just fits with their whole view on life and society in general. Let the bad guys run free and do what they want but don't you dare take your security into your own hands.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Actually "rights" are limited by the relative power of those claiming the right and those attempting to deny the right. As an example, what rights would you have if you were looking down the barrel of my 44Mag revolver? I suggest only those that I was willing to recognize that you have. The reverse is also true. The only rights I would have looking down the barrel of your 12ga are the rights you were willing to recognize that I have. Thus, my point is that the only rights we have are those that we are willing to afford to others and our power to enforce our agreements to recognize the rights we agree to grant to each other. And in enacting the 2nd Amendment our forefathers sought to guarantee that we would always have the power to enforce our agreements to recognize the rights we agree to grant to each other.

Perhaps we have a differing philosophical view of where rights come.
I do not believe that rights are granted by other people, but are a part of being.
When rights are limited by other people it is not an agreement, it is tyranny.
What you may view as an agreed upon 'limit' on rights is no real limit, but rather that the right does not actually exist, rights END where they interfere with another person's rights.

If you really need to use a 44mag to get my agreement how can you not see that as tyranny?

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Originally Posted by press1280

Just fits with their whole view on life and society in general. Let the bad guys run free and do what they want but don't you dare take your security into your own hands.

Um, no, it goes WAY deeper than that. These grandchildren/great grandchildren of Lenin are continuing his teachings, one of which is that 'common' criminals are no threat to a soviet socialist society while 'political' criminals are a GREAT threat to soviet socialist society and must be crushed when and where they are found [aka 'canceling'] It's not just me that has observed this but a great many writers including Lenin himself...

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by EM2

Perhaps we have a differing philosophical view of where rights come.
I do not believe that rights are granted by other people, but are a part of being.
When rights are limited by other people it is not an agreement, it is tyranny.
What you may view as an agreed upon 'limit' on rights is no real limit, but rather that the right does not actually exist, rights END where they interfere with another person's rights.

If you really need to use a 44mag to get my agreement how can you not see that as tyranny?

Uh, yeah, you're the weird one. If you're saying that rights come not from men or civilization, but from god, that's definitely weird. I mean, what Text, History, Tradition believes that rights come from God, are natural rights, rather than rights granted by a king?

Good luck getting anyone important like a Supreme Court justice agreeing to that weirdo idea of natural rights. That's so... Locke/Enlightenment/Late 1700s ideas.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by EM2

Perhaps we have a differing philosophical view of where rights come.
I do not believe that rights are granted by other people, but are a part of being.
When rights are limited by other people it is not an agreement, it is tyranny.
What you may view as an agreed upon 'limit' on rights is no real limit, but rather that the right does not actually exist, rights END where they interfere with another person's rights.

If you really need to use a 44mag to get my agreement how can you not see that as tyranny?

I fully understand your views which are shared by many. My view is from a practical perspective rather than a philosophical one as I feel that it better fits reality. But this is not to discount the philosophical argument or degrade anyone's beliefs. No dispute that when rights are limited by other people it is not an agreement, it is tyranny. But if we are in agreement then it would not be tyranny and I suspect that there is much we agree upon. I did not mean to suggest that I needed to use a 44mag to get your agreement or that you needed a 12ga to get mine. Because that would be a capitulation rather than an agreement. I used that example merely to point out or explain why I view the question from a practical rather than a philosophical perspective.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Uh, yeah, you're the weird one. If you're saying that rights come not from men or civilization, but from god, that's definitely weird. I mean, what Text, History, Tradition believes that rights come from God, are natural rights, rather than rights granted by a king?

Good luck getting anyone important like a Supreme Court justice agreeing to that weirdo idea of natural rights. That's so... Locke/Enlightenment/Late 1700s ideas.

Even if we were to agree that rights come from God, it is still nothing more than our agreement!

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Actually "rights" are limited by the relative power of those claiming the right and those attempting to deny the right.

And how is that different from any other liberty or even privilege for that matter?

It isn't.

Rights differ from those other things in a fundamental way.

It may be that operatively, the exercise of a right is ultimately governed by whomever holds the greatest power, but that refers to the circumstantial exercise of the right, not the nature of the right itself.


Here's how I look at it:

A right, like much else that we operate under, is a conceptual entity, a recognized essential part of a larger framework that we operate under. We refer to it as "preexisting" because that recognizes an essential attribute of it: its fundamental necessity to existence as a free individual, which is exactly the state you'd be in absent government or other people attempting to coerce your actions -- the preexisting state of being.

Put another way, it's fundamental because it's a necessity of life as a free individual (for one cannot remain a free individual if one is unable to successfully defend his own life, nor can one remain a free individual if one is unable to, in concert with his fellow man, defend against a tyrannical government), and it's preexisting because that free state of being is the one which predates government.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

And how is that different from any other liberty or even privilege for that matter?

It isn't.

No disagreement here.

Rights differ from those other things in a fundamental way.

It may be that operatively, the exercise of a right is ultimately governed by whomever holds the greatest power, but that refers to the circumstantial exercise of the right, not the nature of the right itself.


Here's how I look at it:

A right, like much else that we operate under, is a conceptual entity, a recognized essential part of a larger framework that we operate under. We refer to it as "preexisting" because that recognizes an essential attribute of it: its fundamental necessity to existence as a free individual, which is exactly the state you'd be in absent government or other people attempting to coerce your actions -- the preexisting state of being.

Put another way, it's fundamental because it's a necessity of life as a free individual (for one cannot remain a free individual if one is unable to successfully defend his own life, nor can one remain a free individual if one is unable to, in concert with his fellow man, defend against a tyrannical government), and it's preexisting because that free state of being is the one which predates government.

Could not agree more. Excellent!

[abinsinia]

I don't know to what degree it matters, but the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision was revised 7/29.

The only changes are they changed the name "Chief Justice Holt" to "Chief Justice Herbert" in three places.

[marcusrn]

What would Dr Joseph Warren do? Yeah, Major General Joseph Warren of Boston, Ma.?

[IVC]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

With what rights does carry itself, when done safely (e.g., with a holstered weapon) conflict with? None is the answer. Carrying simply means you have the weapon available to you in case of confrontation. Carrying by itself endangers nobody.

You snuck in regulation (permissible) with "when done safely" without acknowledging that you've done it. The point is that there CAN be a requirement about the manner of carry that is NOT an infringement, right? I can't say: "I'll carry in my hand with finger on the trigger because ma'h freedum [sic]," right? And that's just a small technical detail.

The REAL problem is that your next point, "carrying by itself," is missing the critical context - it is "carrying by itself with the ability to fire legally in self-defense situation," right? The second part, the ability to fire if in confrontation, is something that certainly can endanger others and requires very careful considerations to balance individual civil rights of innocent bystanders. Those considerations CAN include certain proficiency standards in order to protect others in case of your confrontation. Otherwise, you would have to modify your statement along the lines of "Carrying by itself endangers nobody IF you are NOT ALLOWED to discharge the firearm under ANY condition." That would be quite a caveat to functional carry, no?

[EM2]

Originally Posted by IVC

You snuck in regulation (permissible) with "when done safely" without acknowledging that you've done it. The point is that there CAN be a requirement about the manner of carry that is NOT an infringement, right? I can't say: "I'll carry in my hand with finger on the trigger because ma'h freedum [sic]," right? And that's just a small technical detail.

The REAL problem is that your next point, "carrying by itself," is missing the critical context - it is "carrying by itself with the ability to fire legally in self-defense situation," right? The second part, the ability to fire if in confrontation, is something that certainly can endanger others and requires very careful considerations to balance individual civil rights of innocent bystanders. Those considerations CAN include certain proficiency standards in order to protect others in case of your confrontation. Otherwise, you would have to modify your statement along the lines of "Carrying by itself endangers nobody IF you are NOT ALLOWED to discharge the firearm under ANY condition." That would be quite a caveat to functional carry, no?

Like those proficiency standards required before one posts online?
Where else are proficiency standards required to exercise a right?

[IVC]

Originally Posted by EM2

Where else are proficiency standards required to exercise a right?

The standards could be required any time the exercise of a right can violate someone else's rights.

In case of carrying, even the passive carrying requires regulation (no Mexican carry, must be in a holster, cannot brandish, etc.) because there exist methods of carry that are unsafe for either the carrier, the public, or both. Specifying that a safe method of carry is the only legal method in public is permissible regulation because the only limit on the act is where it interferes with someone else's civil right.

When it comes to carry for self defense, where it's implied that the use of the gun is legal and permissible in case of confrontation, the act of legal firing in public is something that certainly endangers bystanders and general public. If the act of firing a gun in public affects other's human rights (and it does), it certainly CAN be regulated to mitigate this risk.

[IVC]

The "no training or proficiency regulation is permissible" is not a hill to die on. Not even the hill to fight for. In fact, we as a community already strongly suggest to anyone new to get training, training and more training. We also support and endorse, e.g., hunting education which is a long class about safety when dealing with loaded firearms with intent to discharge them in the vicinity of other people (other hunters in the field).

The least of our concern is whether a person has to show they can hit a target at 7 yards, or whether they can safely holster, unholster, load and unload a gun. In fact, we don't have a single lawsuit challenging CA's FSC or the required demonstration of loading and unloading when picking up a handgun. There is no lawsuit challenging hunter ed. Whether there should/can/must/mustn't/would/wouldn't be proficiency test is something we should look into after we are bored of all the winning, after we have no roster, no AWB, no 1/30 limits, true shall issue, no Internet ammo ban, no extra taxes and no arbitrary sensitive places.

[Oneaudiopro]

Originally Posted by IVC

The standards could be required any time the exercise of a right can violate someone else's rights.

In case of carrying, even the passive carrying requires regulation (no Mexican carry, must be in a holster, cannot brandish, etc.) because there exist methods of carry that are unsafe for either the carrier, the public, or both. Specifying that a safe method of carry is the only legal method in public is permissible regulation because the only limit on the act is where it interferes with someone else's civil right.

When it comes to carry for self defense, where it's implied that the use of the gun is legal and permissible in case of confrontation, the act of legal firing in public is something that certainly endangers bystanders and general public. If the act of firing a gun in public affects other's human rights (and it does), it certainly CAN be regulated to mitigate this risk.

Isn't what you're stating exactly how Ca decided cases in the past prior to the Bruen decision? Public safety has always been the crutch that Ca has used in the past to infringe on 2nd amendment rights. BTW.......I shouldn't have to prove I took an English class in order to post on the internet.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by IVC

The standards could be required any time the exercise of a right can violate someone else's rights.

...

When it comes to carry for self defense, where it's implied that the use of the gun is legal and permissible in case of confrontation, the act of legal firing in public is something that certainly endangers bystanders and general public. If the act of firing a gun in public affects other's human rights (and it does), it certainly CAN be regulated to mitigate this risk.

This sounds like you are thinking of perhaps a crowded venue like a ball game.
However, restricting my right to carry into that venue also restricts my right to protect myself while walking to and from that crowded venue.
Simply carrying at the venue does not necessarily mean a person would use the firearm at the venue, and there are numerous circumstances where a person may need to defend themselves at a crowded venue that may not actually endanger the public, such as at a restroom or other area that may not be crowded at the time an attack may take place.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Oneaudiopro

Isn't what you're stating exactly how Ca decided cases in the past prior to the Bruen decision?

No, they used "public safety" to deny the free exercise of the right, not to regulate the method of exercise.

It's like saying that USA and North Korea are the same when it comes to free speech because "both countries have some regulation of speech." The difference being that in the USA the regulation would be that, e..g, large gatherings that interrupt traffic and free movement of others must be registered in advance and the requests will be handled in the content-neutral way, while in the North Korea the regulation is that anyone saying anything contrary to the party and the dear leader goes to gulag. Both are requlations, but the details matter.

Originally Posted by Oneaudiopro

BTW.......I shouldn't have to prove I took an English class in order to post on the internet.

Correct. Anything stupid one does on the Internet, such as posting threats, libel, harassment, etc., is handled after the fact because there is time to deal with it. However, if one uses a handgun to defend himself and in the process hits me, a bystander, then there is no delayed recourse for me if I'm dead because he couldn't shoot.

Again, I'm not advocating for proficiency tests, only that they are not automatically unconstitutional. And the reason I'm not advocating for such tests is not because I think they are an infringement, but because I haven't seen any meaningful study that would show they improve public safety. Looks like those who carry tend to understand the serious consequences of such a decision and they tend to make sure they are proficient.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by EM2

This sounds like you are thinking of perhaps a crowded venue like a ball game.

Not necessarily. Venues with controlled access points and perimeters are a question of sensitive places.

What I'm saying is that proficiency tests by themselves are in the similar category as the requirements to carry in a holster or the requirements not to carry in my hand. They regulate the exercise of the fundamental right but are not infringements. Felons and mentally ill would get access to guns based on history before proficiency tests were deemed unconstitutional.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by IVC

You snuck in regulation (permissible) with "when done safely" without acknowledging that you've done it. The point is that there CAN be a requirement about the manner of carry that is NOT an infringement, right? I can't say: "I'll carry in my hand with finger on the trigger because ma'h freedum [sic]," right? And that's just a small technical detail.

Correct. There are ways to do things which automatically pose a threat to others, and ways that do not. We tend to impose restrictions on those ways that do.

The REAL problem is that your next point, "carrying by itself," is missing the critical context - it is "carrying by itself with the ability to fire legally in self-defense situation," right?

That doesn't matter. If the carrying itself doesn't of itself pose a danger, then restricting it is infringement, period.

The second part, the ability to fire if in confrontation, is something that certainly can endanger others and requires very careful considerations to balance individual civil rights of innocent bystanders.

Which means that restrictions on how and when one can legally use the weapon may well be permissible.

But that's not what a CCW is. A CCW is a prior restraint on all public carry, not mere use.

Those considerations CAN include certain proficiency standards in order to protect others in case of your confrontation.

That's true of almost all things we do. Nearly everything we do can cause harm to others if done improperly. So where are the permits for, e.g., public and private speech, wherein you are not allowed to speak at all unless you demonstrate proficiency in speech and demonstrate that you understand what speech is considered harmful to others (e.g., incitement to violence)?

Otherwise, you would have to modify your statement along the lines of "Carrying by itself endangers nobody IF you are NOT ALLOWED to discharge the firearm under ANY condition." That would be quite a caveat to functional carry, no?

No. The carrying itself still endangers nobody (when done in a safe manner). Use of the weapon in case of confrontation is different from carry itself. Carry may enable use of the firearm but it is not, itself, use of the firearm.

The permit is not a substitute for laws governing the discharge and use of firearms, nor is it even a substitute for laws governing how one carries in the first place. You're arguing for a mechanism which forbids all exercise of the right save for when the government has issued you the permit, despite the fact that the laws governing carry and use of firearms are operative irrespective of the possession of the permit. Or are you going to claim that once you've got your permit, you no longer have any restrictions to follow?

And finally, there's the question of evidence that proficiency requirements generate heightened safety. Yes, we can proclaim from the rooftops that these requirements work because we believe they should. But that doesn't make it so. If you're going to impose a requirement on a fundamental right, you had better be able to prove that the requirement is necessary in the first place. Rational basis is off the table, which means mere speculation just doesn't cut it. So prove your case that proficiency requirements for those carrying actually prevent injury or death of innocents. Frankly, I expect the same of manner-of-carry restrictions as well.

And all that presumes some sort of analytical framework that takes such things into account in the first place. As regards the right to arms, whatever is being proposed has to be consistent with the nation's founding-era rooted historical tradition of firearms regulation. I dare say you'll be hard pressed to find a national historical tradition of permit requirements on carry of firearms, and might even fail to find such a tradition regarding how one carries a firearm in the first place.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by IVC

Not necessarily. Venues with controlled access points and perimeters are a question of sensitive places.

What I'm saying is that proficiency tests by themselves are in the similar category as the requirements to carry in a holster or the requirements not to carry in my hand.

They're not even close. The requirement to carry in a holster or to not carry in your hand prevents you from carrying in those manners only. You are still able to carry.

But proficiency requirements prevent you from carrying altogether until you demonstrate your proficiency. This is a completely different form of restriction. It is a total restriction up until the point of demonstration.

That is a very different kind of restriction. It is a prior restraint, something that the other requirements are not.

They regulate the exercise of the fundamental right but are not infringements.

They're infringements because there's no founding-era rooted historical national tradition of requiring permits for carrying of firearms. And they're also infringements because they forbid all carry until the government is "satisfied".

And finally, proficiency tests run afoul of the question of just how proficient you have to be before you're "safe enough". I dare say there's no answer to that question, but I can guarantee that there will be governments which insist that it be high enough that most people wouldn't pass it. How can you insist that such a requirement is "too much" while simultaneously insisting upon that type of requirement in the first place? That you might disagree with the proficiency thresholds doesn't mean they're incorrect. So what are you going to do, insist that the government prove that the chosen thresholds are necessary? Well, that's exactly what I'm demanding with respect to the entire requirement in the first place.