Angry woman cartoon pointing feat
Shutterstock
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

 

New York’s common sense and century-old law on concealed carry permits struck an appropriate balance between preserving Second Amendment rights and preventing weapons from being procured by those who should not have them. The reality is that most gun permits were, in fact, granted even under the requirement that an individual establish proper cause to obtain a license.

New York’s elected officials must come up with new laws and regulations to make sure that incidents of gun violence do not rise because of this ruling. …

In my role as New York State Bar Association president, I have reconvened our Task Force on Mass Shootings and Assault Weapons to work in conjunction with our Criminal Justice Section to come up with new regulations to protect New Yorkers. We also call upon Gov. Kathy Hochul, state Attorney General Letitia James, New York City Mayor Eric Adams and our other elected representatives to immediately pursue a new framework of regulations to combat the scourge of gun violence.

— Sherry Levin Wallach in New York State Bar Association Decries U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Concealed Carry Law, Reconvenes Its Mass Shooting Task Force to Work With Lawmakers on Sensible Gun Control

 

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

120 COMMENTS

  1. Lawfare is not only like a river of gold for attorneys, but it is highly entertaining.

    • Upset losers in charge of supplying criminals with unarmed defenseless victims are attempting to skate around a USSC Ruling.

      Anyone can see the hate disgruntled democRat politicians have for the armed citizen. And that’s while the NY governor, mayor and other special people have armed security protecting their worthless behinds.

      Now those running the plantation don’t have no use for slaves carrying around any guns. The white lady kathy hochul wants no more words about guns and youse best get back to singing some gospel melodies and picking cotton.

      • What sheer bloody hypocracy using AFRO-AMERICAN gun ownership as an excuse to oppose gun ownership legislation as is it makes no difference at all. As far as I understand US LAW gun ownership is is not dependent of colour, or creed and I cannot for the life of me see the connection between gun ownership supposed SLAVERY or PERSONAL FREEDOM.
        I am from the other side of the pond in the uK and I have no mreason to suppose that the UK is anything other than the norm, with a few adjustments, as regards firearms ownership in the CIVILISED WORLD. [and I emphasise the word CIVILISED!!] I do not consider myslef to be disadvanted by not being gun-obsessed and subject to exceedingly strict licensing legislation and neither, as far as I am aware, are the citizens of say AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, CANADA and the EUROPEAN COMMUNITY. There are NO mass demonstations for less stringent legislation indeed the vast majority fully support it and it does not enter the political arena. To suggest that somehow this limits our personal frredoms is absolutely ridiculaous. I’d go farther and take the oppoite viewpoint, The citizens of which I speak fo NOT walk in fear of being shot, they do not fear sending their kids to scholl less they become victims of yet another SCHOOLROOM mass shooting I very much doubt that is has ever even crossed their minds They are far more concerned about TRAFFIC incidents.
        It never crosses my mind that I may end up being shot over some minor quarrel. Gun ownership is not a matter of normal discussion.

        Now a bit of personal history. I joined my local ARMY CADET FORCE at the age of 14 . By the time I was 16 years old I had qualified to the BRITISH ARMY INFANTRY MARKSMAN standard with both RIFLE [LEE-ENFIELD .303 SMLE] and the BREN LMG and had practiced with both the WEBLEY/ENFIELD [ what a load of shite they were!!] PISTOL but claim no expertise and the STEN SMG and dry runs with the PIAT.

        At the age of 16 I joined the ROYAL AIR FORCE as an APPRENTICE ARMOURER. After THREE years training I eventually reached the Rank of SGT ARMOURER [AIR/GROUND] TECHNICIAN and for several years was a SMALLARMS INSTRUCTOR among my other duties.. I managed both a WOMEN’S RAF [WRAF] and the RAF YOUTH SHOOTING TEAM. On leaving the RAF I joined the UK ARMY INFANTRY RESERVES for seven years. I think I can, with some justification say that I am, or more correctly was, a PROFESSIONAL. Since leaving the Services in the ’90’s I have never had the urge to own a firearm, except for a short interlude when I did some SKEET shooting and some indoor .22 and never had the need to do so.

        Do I feel in anyway restricted? NO I FLOCKING DO NOT.

        Do I feel I Have LOST MY PERSONAL FREEDOMS? NO I do flocking NOT.

        Do I think the gun ownership regulations in the UK are over Draconian? No I do FLOCKING not.!

        • Dude! You used the word civilized twice, textually emphasizing the word “civilized” and you can’t even spell it. I hate to be a spelling Nazi but you are from the UK, at least you’ve told us that. If you can’t even master English you probably suck at the other professions you mentioned. When you lecture us on the other side of the pond you should get it right. Especially after we’ve had to bail your asses out twice.

        • You should really find a website on the other side of the ” pond” to pester with your inane comments. Maybe something like ” The Truth About How the Bloody English Empire became Flocking Irrelevant in the 20th Century “. I bet you’d have a captive audience there.

        • Cool story, Bro. Thank you for playing. Now keep to your side of the pond and we’ll all be happy, m’kay?

        • “…emphasizing the word ‘civilized’ and you can’t even spell it.”

          He used the British spelling form, which has an “s” whereas the American form has a “z.” Same with “organise” and “capitalise” and so on.

        • I think you meant to say that you’re domesticated not civilized. There’s a huge difference. And this point was settled in 1776. Took us a few years to kick your ass out of our country but we did it. Your viewpoint is not valid in the United States of America. We believe in the freedom of the individual still. But I wouldn’t expect a subject to understand the freedoms of a citizen.

        • The UK is not civilized. You have been conditioned to believe that you are, so not entirly your fault. However, I’ve explained this many times.
          So once again.

          Our 2nd Amendment is written to ensure ‘The People’ will always be allowed to ateempt to have the last word in any political issue. We are citizens. You are a subject of the crown.
          We have the means to say “NO!”, You and the rest of the countries you named DO NOT.

        • “As far as I understand US LAW gun ownership is is not dependent of colour, or creed and I cannot for the life of me see the connection between gun ownership supposed SLAVERY or PERSONAL FREEDOM.”

          Albert, you should read more and talk less. Anyone who knows our history knows quite well why the evil Roger Taney was horrified at the idea of citizenship applying to African-Americans:

          “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” – Dred Scott v. Sandford

          So yes, in our culture, sojourning where we please and carrying arms wherever we go is among the many things that distinguishes the free from the subjugated.

        • Why is it that because of the gun laws England had before WW2, U.S. Citizens shipped their personal firearms to England for the population to defend their country from Nazi attack, should that have happened?

        • No right to self defense in GB on othe areas of the EU.

          Civilized? No.

          Your just another poser thinking a British accent makes you intellectually superior. Hint: it doesn’t.

        • You misunderstand the United States. We left the British Empire precisely because of thinking like yours. Many of us realize that we cannot depend on the police and the right to use lethal force in self or third party defense is enshrined in our state laws. We DO feel deprived when tools for self defense are denied by government fiat. If it had been up to your British generals, no American would have been allowed firearms as the Redcoats carried out systematic plunder of others’ property: you did it in India, South Africa, the Gold Coast and forced Opium on the Chinese. So spare me the pseudo-moralism; I’ll keep my 9 mm ready in case it is needed.

        • Alfredo I’m hearing a lot of “was” from you.
          I’ was a pretty good fighter.
          Now I’m old and just about anybody can kick my ass.
          Give it up old man what we was ain’t what we are now.
          Like the song says, ” What have you done for me lately?”

        • Once again, Albert the Subject blatantly LIES about his supposed “expertise” in firearms (as well as his non-existent “understanding of US firearms laws”). Remember, this is the man who asserted that “50 rounds on hand” was MORE than ample, then later lowered it to 25 rounds. I pointed out, SEVERAL times, that 25 rounds, or even 50 rounds, wasn’t even a warm up. Maintaining firearms skills requires regular practice, and an average day at the range has me going through AT LEAST a couple hundred rounds for each of 3 to 4 firearms. And I’m not even CLOSE to being as active at training as I would like to be, or as many of my “range buddies” are.

          ” . . . I cannot for the life of me see the connection between gun ownership supposed SLAVERY or PERSONAL FREEDOM.”

          Gee, I am SO concerned about YOUR subject impressions of what constitutes slavery or personal freedom. Take your subject “opinions”, fold them ’til they are all corners, and stick them where the sun don’t shine. The OVERWHELMING historical evidence shows that (i) gun control and firearms “regulations” are always and everywhere a tool of fascist authoritarianism – American “gun control” laws originated almost ENTIRELY as a way to keep guns out of the hands of the “wrong people”, i.e., those of African ancestry, and (ii) as for “freedom”, well . . . it pretty conclusively kicked YOUR sorry @$$es out of our country, dinnit, Albert the bootlicking sycophant of a subject??

          “o I feel in anyway restricted? NO I FLOCKING DO NOT.

          Do I feel I Have LOST MY PERSONAL FREEDOMS? NO I do flocking NOT.

          Do I think the gun ownership regulations in the UK are over Draconian? No I do FLOCKING not.!”

          And, I give a damp shart what YOU think, Albert the Subject? NO, I do FLOCKING not!! We stopped giving even a TINY shart about your idiot, servile, subject opinions in 1776. Feel free to blow it out your anal sphincter, subject.

        • Those weapons listed are 1940s to 1950s. Although the Patchett, later Stirling, was starting to replace the STEN at the end of WW2. You’ve had limited experience. Being in the military does not make you experienced in firearms. Most noncombat personnel will rarely use a firearm after basic training and a periodic qualification.

          This is why in competition the Australian civilian shooters would always beat the military shooters, and often by significant margins. The military thought they had a chance when we reverted to bolt actions after Port Arthur. They were beaten by bigger margins than before. The military then ceased competing.

          The difference? REGULAR PRACTICE!

        • The UK is its own predicament. On one hand, they act so self-loving regarding the gun issue, but quietly avoid discussing their massive knife problem. They cannot fathom citizens owning guns because so many of their own citizens are carrying illegal knives and trying to injure one another. Google “England, bin that knife” if you don’t believe me. For all of the British gentlemen tut-tutting about US gun laws, there are three blokes carrying a knife and ready to use it.

          Furthermore, the UK is an island nation. When you have complete control of your borders, you don’t have to worry about a lot of things.

        • No Constitution, no freedom. We took the “indispensable” mantle from the UK a century ago and have been top dog ever since.

        • The fear that armed African Americans put into the KKK and other violent racists led to the US’ first gun control laws. There’s a significant amount of fairly thinly veiled racism in the gun control movement here to this day.

          The US doesn’t have the social solidarity that the UK has in order to have similar gun control laws and areas that have laws that resemble the UK’s regime don’t get the UK’s results.

        • You have a massive rape epidemic happening in your country and all you can do is plead with your government to “maybe, pretty please do something about it if it doesn’t offend anyone.” In our country when rapes go up women start carrying guns and publicizing it and the rapes go back down. Enjoy it when those rapes and acid attacks turn into murders and you are the ones arrested if you fight back

        • Of course, if you knew the history of your own gun regulations, of which the most restrictive are primarily artifacts of the latter half of the 20thC, you would know that they have had essentially no positive effect, much less a statistically significant one, on your overall gun crime and homicide rates, which were, as in all of your cherry-picked “civilised” (and suspiciously majority white, are more diverse nations not civilised in your eyes?) nations, not very high prior to those restrictions.

          If you are concerned with intellectual accuracy and integrity, I recommend Joyce Malcolm’s “Guns and Violence: The English Experience” and Colin Greenwood’s (Fmr. Chief Inspector, West Yorkshire Constabulary) “Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales.” For a history of the very English roots of the U.S. Second Amendment, Stephen Halbrook’s “The Right to Bear Arms” is the preeminent text on the subject.

        • “That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” George Orwell

        • “I was in the British Army and I don’t the Yanks should have so many guns” is a hell of a brave think to post on an American gun website.

          Stupid and pointless, but brave. Since Americans have proven, time and again, that we don’t care what other countries or their subjects think our policies should be. Half of us don’t care what the other half thinks.

          And you Limeys traded rare gun fire for knife and acid attacks.

      • The history of gun law regulations are expressly racist. The early laws were designed to assure that former slaves could be disarmed. the Sullivan Act enacted over 100 years ago in NYC was expressly aimed at disarming “undesirables,” including Italian immigrants, blacks, and other unsavory groups. It worked; only the “best people” could get permits, and whites were rarely prosecuted under the law after it was enacted. It was finally overturned yesterday. The same is true for San Francisco’s law, which banned a lot of things besides guns, a law aimed at Mexicans, Indians, and other undesirables who were apt to get into drunken brawls.

    • Wow! Slow golfers clap… that Sherry Levin Wallach really knows her agitprop.

      And coming from me an 𝓪𝓰𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓽 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓾𝓻 that is quite the glowing compliment.

      She hits all the frothy, superficial, but ultimately meaningless buzz words, “common sense, Assault Weapons, gun violence”.

      Then mixes in the blatant falsehood of leftist propagandist that only laws keep you safe “elected officials must come up with new laws and regulations” and “new regulations to protect New Yorkers” and (ad nauseam) “to immediately pursue a new framework of regulations to combat the scourge of gun violence.”

      Completely ignoring two facts, criminals, by definition, ignore laws (and regulations). And New York doesn’t prosecute criminals if/when they are caught.

      Other than those two ‘miner’ points… for your average low information voter…. Well done Sherry Levin Wallach, I tip my hat, because you too are a “special” 𝓪𝓰𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓽 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓾𝓻!

      Oh, and because I have TDS, this SCOTUS ruling is all the bad orange man’s fault.

    • It would seem, considering the SCOTUS ruling, that the path of gold could also include lawyers retained to sue the State of New York for violating the plaintiffs’ civil rights if they continue to ignore the ruling that plainly names the Second Amendment, as written, as equal to all other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

      The New York legislature might just as well make being a Catholic or Mormon a requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permission slip and see how that works out.

      • “…that the path of gold could also include lawyers retained to sue the State of New York for violating the plaintiffs’ civil rights if they continue to ignore the ruling…”

        Lawyers don’t actually care, so long as the client can pay. Bruen doesn’t really settle anything, just sets the table for continued defiance of the Second Amendment, and the SC. The stance will largely be, “So, sue me.” Meanwhile, individuals remain subject to arrest and trial for trying to exercise their perceived benefit from the Bruen ruling. And the ever present “job action”, or “slowdown” related to processing applications for permits (continuing the practice of making citizens get permission slips to exercise an enumerated right.

        The recent ruling is double speak about that. If the Second Amendment is a first class right, why did Thomas leave in place any permitting system at all?

    • New York’s Governor has already called a special legislative session for June 30 so the Legislature can address Bruen. One idea that Hochul is floating:

      “On Thursday, Hochul said she wants to approve a bill that would allow businesses and private property owners “protect themselves” in the event someone tries to bring a gun onto their property.”

      She elaborated Friday, saying her team is considering a system where guns would be prohibited in businesses unless they proactively allow them in their establishment.”

      – https://gothamist.com/news/albany-looking-at-gun-bills-for-special-session-in-next-week-or-two

      Talked to a friend who lives in New York today and has an unrestricted permit. He said that passing a law with that kind of language would substantially restrict places where one can currently legally carry concealed, essentially rendering conceal carry useless.

    • At this point they could hand out unrestricted permits like candy and it would not change the overall crime/safety of this state. Criminals already have their guns and get a steady supply through various means and the rest of the state is generally law abiding until they are not at which point its just another criminal incident that will draw the majority of the attention for the minority of occurrences.

  5. Meh, lawyers are ticked off by freedom because it’s less money for the lawyers defending people. All they care about is their cash cow, i.e. the people. It’s more profitable to drain out all the cash from some guy who gets jammed up from gun regulations than it is to accept more freedom.

  6. This is going to be an interesting July 4th weekend in the Liberal Cities. Lot’s of mostly peaceful “protests” I suspect.

  7. “The reality is that most gun permits were, in fact, granted even under the requirement that an individual establish proper cause to obtain a license.”

    New York doesn’t get it, again.

    The fact is of the ones they decided to grant, those are the “majority” of which they speak. This was uncovered in previous SCOTUS arguments. Granting a permit to some does not mean they are the majority, when in reality they should have been granting to all who applied without a requirement they show proper cause if they are not prohibited persons.

    They also do not understand there was never a constitutional “requirement that an individual establish proper cause to obtain a license” – they invented this arbitrary requirement.

    Its horrible they used this requirement for so many years to basically ensure the deaths of thousands of innocent law abiding people. The New York State Bar Association president, the governor, the state attorney general, and the anti-gun who helped this unconstitutional requirement to continue to exist should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity at a minimum.

  8. Waiting for Dobbs to drop this morning. I tried to comment on the article but there was no comment section. I had planned to tell Ms Wallach that the oath she took was to defend the Constitution, all of it. Not just the parts she agrees with. Too many of our “elected” politicos have forgotten or chose to ignore it.

  9. Civil rights. Not 2a rights. We need to pound the truth. The fascist left and all those that support gun control are in support of civil rights violations.

    Hammer them as civil rights deniers.

  10. Wow! With due respect to Safe and the other N.Y. based readers on TTAG, the management of your State is really F’d up.

    I read yesterday where the Socialists / Communists are always negatively comparing Capitalism (with it’s flaws) against their imagined, untarnished, Utopic ideal of everyone sharing equally in happiness, fruits of labor, etc. They either do not see, or more importantly, do not care that the practical application of Socialism does not work for the very same reasons they eternally damn Capitalism. There emerges an Elite that mandates and directs the unwashed masses whilst living the high life at the lower class’s expense. At least under Capitalism there is a greater chance for individual ingenuity, dedication and excellence to allow you to create income or better outcomes for yourself.

    The Elite of New York have outed themselves for the Authoritarians that they are…and they desperately wish to continue their vaunted existence at The People’s expense. Their only promise is to provide increased bread and circuses.*

    *a superficial appeasement – gaining public approval through superficial means such as diversion and distraction to hide fundamental flaws in their proposed society.

    • Montana there is very likely nothing negative you could say about my State’s government that my coworkers (let alone myself) have not already thought of in far worse terms. Spot on for our elites but would describe them more as wannabe gangsters/oligarchs than authoritarians as they often lack the conviction of true commies but bread and circus has applied for quite some time.

  12. “The reality is that most gun permits were, in fact, granted even under the requirement that an individual establish proper cause to obtain a license.”

    Because most otherwise-would-be applicants knew their potential applications would be denied, and so did not bother to apply. Her claim has all the sincerity of the “plans were on display” claim from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

    “But the plans were on display…”
    “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
    “That’s the display department.”
    “With a flashlight.”
    “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
    “So had the stairs.”
    “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
    “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

    • Good comparison. We need a permit to even touch let alone purchase and own a pistol to begin with and it needs to be unrestricted to effectively carry it outside of the home/hunting/range/work sometimes. I would love to see the permit for simple ownership done away with entirely (mini gun registration) and only have a conceal carry permit (would love constitutional but it is NY) like a normal state but we have a lot of soon to be wild lawsuits to consider.

  13. “…and Moderated…again…and again.”

    Try this: “I am making $80 an hour from home”. (followed by your intended comment). “And you can too.”

    Pure spam seems to not be moderated at all.

    • *snort* *choke* guffaws followed by manic laughter…

      Thank you Sam for reminding me to lighten up. I may have to try your suggested lead-in and closing statement just to see what happens.

      Wishing a happy Friday to you and yours.

      • “Thank you Sam for reminding me to lighten up”

        Happy to be here, grateful for the opportunity, proud to serve.

        And a safe and happy Friday to you and yours.

    • I got moderated for calling Joy Behar a not inappropriate nom de plume. Anywho keep fighting NY! It happened in ILLannoy. It can happen for you…

      • I would imagine figuring out where to start is more the problem now as opposed to getting things thrown out……..awesome problem to have.

  15. “Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.” – Joey Biden….aka “You don’t need an AR-15 or 30 round “clips” (sic) to hunt deer.” (See attached picture.) Aw…..I apologize, got names confused…it was Heinrich Himmler.
    “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” – President Harris. Oops, again, my bad…it was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
    Same objective……..different spellings……..different victims…….same end point.
    “They currently have guns, and therefore we are for ‘peace’ and ‘reformation through the ballot.’ When we have all the guns, then it will be through the bullet.”’ ~ Saul Alinsky (One of OBlunder’s mentors.)
    With monotonous predictability, all leftists (from Karl Marx to the present) unfailingly aspire to the same bottom line, and always via the same route! However, they have accumulated a murderous, bloody track record. They’re sincerely hoping none of the rest of us even notice (much less study) it,.
    The new agenda for humanity requires that no one will have the capacity to fight back. It has been said: “Our Task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” No other explanation is possible.
    History has repeatedly demonstrated that disarming good people in the name of making bad people harmless only eventually facilitates politicians shooting their own countrymen. History…learn from it; be doomed to relive it; or die by it. Mr. Makowski, 10th Grade World History, was right after all.

  16. I realize everyone is jumping through their navels in celebration, but what actually happened? Are all gun controls now, immediately overturned?

    Didn’t I read that the case is remanded? Doesn’t that start things all over, leaving all gun control laws in place until the case again runs through the courts? Couldn’t the lower courts just rule as they had, that gun control laws are, indeed, constitutional?

    • “Are all gun controls now, immediately overturned?”

      Ya kind of need to define “gun controls”.

      Under SCOTUS ruling context there are some constitutional restrictions now, and many restrictions that are not and never were constitutional. But none of them are any longer “gun control” but rather constitutional rights exercise or denial to exercise.

      “Doesn’t that start things all over, leaving all gun control laws in place until the case again runs through the courts?”

      No. All laws in place that are contrary to this SCOTUS ruling are null and void as they are unconstitutional. Running them back through the courts will not make them constitutional to remain in force while waiting on some now doomed to fail court case.

      “Couldn’t the lower courts just rule as they had, that gun control laws are, indeed, constitutional?”

      No. Before this SCOTUS ruling lower courts could apply the scrutiny they wanted to let an unconstitutional law have the force of constitutionality. The 9th circuit especially took advantage of this to impose their own personal opinion and “influenced” agenda. Now there is that scrutiny as set forth in this SCOTUS decision that must be applied.

      • Seem to remember that a remanded decision means the original decision must be reviewed, and decided again (“in accordance” with the [SC] ruling). And the lower courts can simply sustain their original ruling, which then must be challenged in court.

        Seems that in order to immediately overturn lower courts entirely, the SC would need to openly, and directly, declare that any previous, or subsequent, court decision not inline with the current SC ruling is null, void, and vacated. Not something that is historically included in SC rulings.

        • Basically; A remanded ruling to a lower court, the court must apply that set forth in this SCOTUS ruling and not what was in the original lower court decision to determine constitutionality.

        • Lower courts no longer have the latitude to apply what they want to determine constitutionality, they must apply what this SCOTUS decision applied even for remanded cases.

        • If a law or lower court ruling is contrary to that of this SCOTUS decision, it is unconstitutional, period, as this decision is now “law of the land”.

        • You’ve misunderstood. NYSRPA v. Bruen was not in any way remanded, it is the SCOTUS final decision on the matter.

          Any previous gun control cases relying on means-end, intermediate, or strict scrutiny has been ruled unconstitutional in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Therefore all prior court cases that relied on that basis of balancing test are now in effect, remanded and valid for being reopened with their rulings invalidated.

        • Yes, it is remanded for entry of final judgment consistent with the Supreme Court ruling, meaning no further hearing on the merits. However, there will be the issue of attorney’s fees and costs to be decided in the trial court.

          Technically, only the New York law has been overturned, but the decision is the basis for overturning all similar laws in the remaining seven states. Some states will comply, others will have to be forced to comply by being sued, even though the trial court in those cases will be bound to apply Bruen. That is what happened with the Massachusetts stun gun case; most states revised their laws, but at least three had to be sued to force removal of their bans. Chatter suggests that California will amend its “may issue” law, but that amendment will include new laws intended to make the process of obtaining a “shall issue” CCW as onerous as possible. For example, the now discretionary mental health exam will be made mandatory (add $150 to the $150 cost), training requirements (live fire) may be increased along with a minimum score requirement on a shooting qual (as some counties already apply), etc. We will know soon enough.

        • “Chatter suggests that California will amend its “may issue” law, but that amendment will include new laws intended to make the process of obtaining a “shall issue” CCW as onerous as possible.”

          OK, how does the concept of “A Civil Right delayed is a Civil Right denied” fit into that framework?

          And are there civic or criminal consequences for those found to be deliberately ‘dragging their feet’ (as in, slow-walking the permit procedure)?

          Because I bet Saint Thomas (blessed be his name) would *love* ‘making an example out of’ Leftist Scum ™ who try pulling that kind of a stunt on an enumerated civil right…

  17. Keep in mind that the NYSBA — I was a member back in the day — is a voluntary bar association. No lawyer is required to join. While the antigun nuttery in New York is stupid in the extreme, I am hoping that the NYSBA will lose some members and member dues as a result of this temper tantrum.

    • If everyone thinks THIS is a big deal SCOTUS just overturned Roe vs Wade Ralph!

      • Oh, I thought that they brought back SSTs – – – that wasn’t a sonic boom, it was libtard heads exploding !!
        I better go prepare for a weekend of mostly peaceful protests here, even though it doesn’t affect Minnesota.

    • Yeah not sure why the bar association needs a task force on guns or to be “coming up with regulations.”
      When did you get elected to represent the people of NY, Ms. Wallach?

      Sounds like it is just an anti gun lobbying group that will do the legal research and drop potential ready to go laws into sympathetic law makers laps.

      Seems like the current plan is delegitimatize the current supreme court and rulings, to make a case for packing until desired balance and results are achieved.

      • “…the current plan is delegitimatize the current supreme court and rulings, to make a case for packing until desired balance and results are achieved.”

        Were they to try a trick like that it would backfire massively on them at the midterms.

        Pissed-off people are motivated to vote, while content ones may not bother to show up on election day…

  18. @.40 cal Booger
    “Basically; A remanded ruling to a lower court, the court must apply that set forth in this SCOTUS ruling and not what was in the original lower court decision to determine constitutionality.”

    What is the penalty for lower court defiance? How is defiance determined? Who enforces SC decisions?

    Answer: more court cases; the clock re-starts.

    • Well sure there are going to be court cases.

      A lower court that rules deliberately contrary to and defiantly against SCOTUS can have its judges authority in a case removed by SCOTUS and the ruling voided or overturned.

      Oddly enough the federal government enforces SCOTUS ruling and must also abind by their rulings.

      Its a little different for state level courts. They can rule contrary to SCOTUS and be as defiant as they want. But they know their ruling will not have the constitutionality it needs to survive when that ruling is appealed outside the state courts to the federal courts. So its in a state courts interest, and that states citizens interest, and that states government interest thst a state court ruling also be constitutional as the federal government can enforce a SCOTUS decision.

      Its happened before, one famous example is many years ago with segregation in schools in some states. SCOTUS said “nope” state government and state courts said “yes” and the federal government marched in with armed force to enforce the SCOTUS decision.

      • “Oddly enough the federal government enforces SCOTUS ruling and must also abind by their rulings.”

        Sure – cute that you still believe this. FBI/Dept of “Justice” and Garland will follow the SCOTUS. And the Piglosi House will hold them to account. Surre.

      • “SCOTUS said “nope” state government and state courts said “yes” and the federal government marched in with armed force to enforce the SCOTUS decision.”

        And, who is currently holding the ‘reins of power’ in D.C. these days?

        The current ones deliberately refused to deploy federal troops on January 6, 2022, allowing the rioters into the Capitol building…

  19. So, like all Libtards, she lies about the truth but is clever in her lies. Most “Gun Permits” are approved in New York City and don’t require a “Good Cause”. What she is really talking about is obtaining a “Pistol Permit” (and rifle and shotgun), which allows you to go a buy a pistol from a FFL dealer and keep it in your home or business. This process is long (3 to 10 months), hard and expensive (permit fee $400). Most people hire one of several law firms that specialize in helping people successfully navigate the process.

    If you are like Chuck Schumer, Donald Trump, Howard Stern, etc. you can use your money and power to obtain an “Unrestricted Permit”, which allows you to carry a loaded gun outside your home and business for self-defense, which requires “Good Cause” to get one. In New York City, out of a population of around 8.1 million people, they have issued around 40,000 unrestricted pistol permits. In contrast, where I live in Arizona, with a population of 7.4 million people, we have around around 398,000 permits issued. Considering we have always been a Constitutional Carry State (since the old west) those permits add up to about 5% of the population, that seems reasonable as having a permit only gives you reciprocity with other states, allows you to bypass the NICS, allows carry in a establishment that serves alcohol and within 500 feet of a school (Clinton Gun free Schools Act).

    New York City has some other issues as well. They only issued permits to residents of the city and barred permits from the rest of the state. They also didn’t recognize permits from other states. The prior restraint of the Permit, just to purchase a firearm is clearly unconstitutional as are any mandated waiting periods. Why does anyone need a permit to exercise an enumerated right in the Constitutional. More battles to come.

    • “This process is long (3 to 10 months), hard and expensive (permit fee $400).”

      That sure sounds like a ‘Poll Tax’ to me… 🙂

  20. They do so at their own peril. Knowingly violating the constitution is a good way to find yourself on the receiving end of Civil Rights investigation. If we should, by some miracle, get a republican president with some brains as well as ball, all he he’d have to do is unleash the DoJ on a rogue governor/legislature, and arrest them. Its got a 4 year statute of limitations so whomever would have to strike fast, but still….he could.

    • “Knowingly violating the constitution is a good way to find yourself on the receiving end of Civil Rights investigation.”

      Excuse me, who is currently running the federal government these days? What political party appointed the current US Attorney General?

      A Leftist Scum ™ is, above all else, a Leftist Scum ™ *first*… 🙁

  21. So they just admitted their previous laws failed? Right? Because an uprise in gun violence wouldn’t happen if the laws they made worked. Personally, I’d love to see states like this implement border security and call it gun control related. Lets see how much that works for their arguments that illegally obtained weapons are coming from the outside as they pass more laws to restrict people stuck inside.

  22. “…come up with new laws and regulations to make sure that incidents of gun violence do not rise because of this ruling….”

    Ahhh. The good old fashion “blood will flow in the streets” argument. One that has never been held to be true. Anywhere.

  23. Well there’s this thing my little melting snowflake, that is codified in law. When one deprives you of your civil rights, you may under color of law use deadly force to stop it. I look forward to this becoming common, much, much more common.

    Wonder how long it’s going to take the U.S. Marshals to breach? *evil grin*

  24. Anything and everything except putting actual criminals behind bars.

    The Democraps may as well put that in the party platform.

    • Well naturally……….hard to take away rights to solve a problem if the problem is solved now isn’t it?

  25. Wow what a runt! I am tired of all the city folks knowing what I need in west tn. Especially you Albert how about you lick the sweat from my balls. I am not sending any gun rights org any more money. If you want ‘‘em come take ‘em. Hell yeah I’ll shoot you Beto. I’ll be sure you get your fair share of galena!

    • From a not so city folk living under city folk laws (for now) what more would western TN like to see rights wise as I would like to have a good opening demand for where NY rights should begin?

      • Not sin Tn – But repeal the NFA of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1938 and Gun Control Act 1968 and all that arises out of these Unconstitutional acts.

  26. While anything striking down an infringement of people’s rights is a good outcome, we also know the disarmament crowd will do whatever is in their power to restrict legal ownership or legal carry for defense of firearms.

  27. quote———–New York’s elected officials must come up with new laws and regulations to make sure that incidents of gun violence do not rise because of this ruling.——-quote

    In simple English New York will thumb their nose at the Supreme Court Ruling. They will make it so expensive, time consuming and difficult to get a permit the average person will not even try to get one. Permits will require mental health tests, training on all laws, safety training, guns will be banned in all public places including sub-ways where they are needed the most. They will be banned at all public celebrations, banned in taxi-cabs and busses and in all businesses open to the public both private and governmental. Anyone with even a minor traffic violation will be banned from getting a permit.

  29. @WilliamWallaceTheThird
    “NYSRPA v. Bruen was not in any way remanded, it is the SCOTUS final decision on the matter.”

    “Therefore all prior court cases that relied on that basis of balancing test are now in effect, remanded…”

    ????

  30. @Mark N.
    “We will know soon enough.”

    We know already; lower courts will rebel, just as with Heller/McDonald.

    Seems Thomas gutted his own opinion about demonstrating to government the need to own firearms. Leaving “Shall Issue” in the ruling still results in a government permission slip; allowing states to deny carry permission through a host of impossible requirements. Individuals, states, organizations are preempted from filing suit claiming that permission slips are unconstitutional.

  31. Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR
    “…I bet Saint Thomas (blessed be his name) would *love* ‘making an example out of’ Leftist Scum ™ who try pulling that kind of a stunt on an enumerated civil right…”

    Thomas is not likely to review another 2A case in his life. It will take a decade, or more, for the next 2A case to reach the SC, if ever. Every infringement will have to be litigated (as before), and appeals courts can take their own sweet time scheduling review of 2A cases.

    As with Heller, in Bruen the SC made a bold statement about the meaning of the second amendment. Now let them enforce it expeditiously.

    • ” It will take a decade, or more, for the next 2A case to reach the SC, if ever.”

      Heller was decided in 2008. McDonald v. City of Chicago was decided in 2010.

      2 years between the two.

      Was there some sort of a ‘Rocket Docket’ that got McDonald to the SCotUS in 2 years?

      • “Was there some sort of a ‘Rocket Docket’ that got McDonald to the SCotUS in 2 years?”

        Count again….McDonald in 2010. Bruen in 2022. How many 2A cases were denied cert in between? How many 2A cases are still pending, after years, in the lower courts.

        In ten years, Thomas will be 90something. How likely is he going to be on the bench in 10yrs? What if the SC waits 15, or 20yrs to take up 2A again? How likely is the majority of justices on the SC to remain “originalist” for 15, or 20yrs?

        The court ratio will include 4 leftists, after this summer.

        • looks like”may issue” is on its way out…just bringing NY (especially NYC)) in step with the rest of the country…

  33. @frank speak
    “looks like”may issue” is on its way out…”

    “Shall issue” can be effectively turned into “may issue”.

    FUD is effective in software wars. Then there is “delay, delay, delay”. Or the best one, “We are having staffing problems, due to lack of applicants for the job of processing applications.”

  34. @Matthew A Carberry

    I have a list of contributors to avoid reading, but for some reason, I clicked on your response the Albert. Happy for doing so. The list of references you provided are welcomed; thanx for doing that.

Comments are closed.