WELL, THAT WAS QUICK

1. “New Yorkers with formerly unrestricted carry permits”

   The dirty little secret of the “discretionary” states, who say they need their “restrictive” laws, is that their carry laws weren’t really restrictive in terms of where licensees could carry.
   Which makes sense. If you only license your cronies, why would you make carrying difficult for them.
   “Laws for thee but not for me.”

   • Your analysis is EXACTLY right.

2. Such BS here in NY. Name another constitutional right that requires a permit and/or training and a fee to exercise.

   • NJ just did the same thing.

   • Pursue happiness, perhaps?

3. Commies gonna be commies.

4. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/13/lawmakers-pitch-nations-strongest-gun-bill-in-response-to-supreme-court-00061693

   Not to be outdone by the tyrants governing New York, the tyrants governing New Jersey are positively giddy about passing new, even more draconian legislation that will make lawful carrying of a concealed firearm in the Garden State all but impossible for the estimated 300,000 residents who are reportedly submitting applications for CCW permits.

   Since the governors and legislatures in NY and NJ see fit to spit with contempt in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court, do the freedom-crushing laws that they pass hysterically at the state level really mean anything, from a moral perspective?

   If U.S. Supreme Court rulings mean nothing at all to governing bodies in NY and NJ, then why should those governing bodies’ rulings on any matter mean anything at all to residents of those states? Aren’t these arrogant, condescending governing bodies in NY and NJ, by their very actions taken in direct defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court, actually encouraging contempt for all laws and undermining the rule of law in general?

   • What worries me is the prospect that states will persist in enforcing state laws that the Supreme Court has ruled are unconstitutional. That would mean convicting and imprisoning people for violating unconstitutional laws and refusing to release them even after the Supreme Court overturned their convictions.

     Would the federal government use force to stage a jail break? In the 1950s, the governor of Arkansas called out the National Guard to block school integration after the Supreme Court ruled segregation unconstitutional. President Eisenhower outfoxed the governor by federalizing the Guard which then obeyed his orders rather than the governor’s. It never escalated to combat between the US Army and the Arkansas Guard because, in the end, the governor backed down. He accepted the supremacy of the federal government over his state. Today, there are governors bucking the federal government on a number of issues. I have no idea how far they would be willing to go.

     • Would the federal government use force to stage a jail break?

       Under this administration? Hell, no. Not only does Merrick Garland’s DOJ ideologically support the principles driving the NY and NJ legislatures, they’re too busy finding ways to investigate and prosecute CRT- and COVID-skeptics for “misinformation” and “disinformation” (read: exercising independent thought and First Amendment rights to speak them).

       Under a different (read: more Republican) administration, though? No telling. I wouldn’t put it past the NY and/or NJ governors to rally their “forces” — first their National Guard troops, then their state police officers if the NG gets federalized (but with what arming orders, I wonder?) — to defy the fed.gov with force to keep their unconstitutional laws, any more than I put it past them to authorize killing uppity citizens who commit the capital offense of trying to live as SCOTUS, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution say they should.

5. I’ve always wondered about the NC process, which is “may issue” and requires permission of the county sheriff to get a purchase permit. It seems that now Charlotte-Mecklenburg is under some scrutiny because they’ve essentially stopped issuing permits, citing the VA (of all places) as a reason to be slower than every other county in NC. I just saw that at least one lawsuit is pending. I sure hope so…

   • I hold a concealed carry permit in NC and can verify that NC is a “Shall Issue” state. If the blue communities surrounding Charlotte are operating otherwise, they are not following the law. Even the Giffords gang understands.

     https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/concealed-carry-in-north-carolina/#:~:text=North%20Carolina%20is%20a%20%E2%80%9Cshall,the%20applicant%20meets%20certain%20qualifications.

6. Prlooy the best short term outcome would be for sleazy ol HoChool to cease being governor,which does seem to be a possibility this next go-round in a few weeks.
   The new one replacing it might reshuffle some critical personell who would “let” this abomination die a quiet death, never to be resurrected again.

   • To be clear, I’m pretty sure Tionico is talking about the death of this misbegotten law, not the death of the governor.

     • I think that Tionico may be referring to the New York Governor’s race. Incumbent Governor Hochul is standing for re-election this November. There is a real chance that she may lose this election. See this news article:

       https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2022/10/06/shock-poll-shows-hochul-james-in-trouble-in-new-york-n63028

       If she does, she will be replaced by her Republican opponent.

       So, I believe that Tionico is probably talking about tossing Hochul out-of-office rather than tossing her into a grave. 🙂

       In the event of a Republican winning the Governor’s seat in New York, we may hope for policies that are more sane rather than the rabidly anti-gun polices of the likes of Hochul and James.

       Cross your fingers and watch these races come Election Day.

     • It’s seems clear to me that Tionico is referring to the possibility of the governor of New York being voted out of office in a few weeks with the end result being the new governor appointing personnel who do not support this BS legislation, allowing it to disappear and in time, just be an unpleasant memory.

     • Esteemed Mas, friend Tionico definitely uses the neuter pronoun “it,” probably referring to the unstated word “governorship.” “It” would not refer to governor-at-the-moment Madame H., who might rather merit, following standard English grammar, the feminine pronoun “her” instead of “it,” except maybe through the intervention of something like a Language Police Squad (shudder!), and who would not likely be replaceable in the manner of what could rightfully be termed a genderless abomination of a vengeful piece of legislation. We The People see no malice above from supporter-of-the-law friend T.

7. So now there will be no more murders in NYC because it was declared a gun free zone.

   • The only murders will be in those establishments that declare themselves CCW-friendly. And ones who don’t declare themselves CCW-friendly but are found to have done so after-the-fact (read: are reported in the news to have “taken down their sign” … which they never actually had).

     Everyone knows only white-supremacist domestic terrorists apply for CCW licenses, and they’re the only group that commits murders. Merrick Garland’s DOJ and FBI said it, I believe it, that settles it.

8. I’ve got it figured out!! Why don’t the same ones saying law abiding citizens can’t be trusted with CCW tell Putin he can’t have Nukes!! All the worlds problems solved.

9. Here’s a question uncle Mas. Do you think these recent court decisions in our favor could also strike down Oregon’s long established practice of (a) shall issue for residents but may issue for nonresidents, and (b) if the latter, their outright refusal to issue to anyone who doesn’t live on a state bordering theirs directly? Another thing too. As it stands now, it’s possible (in theory at least) for a CA resident to be able to carry along the entire coast using permits obtained from all three of those liberal states!

   • A question of vital interest to me as I am one of those non-residents with a permit. Almost all of the Sheriffs use their powers to be very restrictive. Non-resident with a business in Oregon was a common restriction. I did find one Sheriff who was a 2A activist and got my permit there. Unfortunately, he lost in the last election and I am unclear what his successor will do when my renewal comes up.

     WA is shall issue for non-residents as well as residents.

   • I’m unclear on that, Paul.

   • Paul — Minor clarification on your question (b): It’s not the sheriffs’ refusal to issue CHLs (Concealed Handgun Licenses) to non-bordering states’ residents. The state statute authorizing CHL issuance says that only residents qualify for shall-issue licenses, but a sheriff “may” waive residency requirements for residents of a “contiguous state” (e.g. residents of Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California). [see: Oregon Revised Statutes 166.291(8)]

     Thus, shall-issue for Oregon residents, may-issue for non-residents from WA, ID, NV, and CA. Some sheriffs will issue non-resident CHLs and some won’t, but while a resident must apply in his/her county, a non-resident can apply in any county; Oregon Firearms Federation keeps tabs on who is willing to issue them and will make recommendations if they can (none currently appear on their website).

     But the sheriffs’ hands are tied for the other 45 States in the Union. By law, not policy.

     • Thanks for clarifying, Archer. When I lived in SE Washington non-resident OR CHLs weren’t uncommon but you’re right, several people told me that it depends on the sheriff. So at that time Portland was pretty much out of the question but most of eastern OR was doable. What I did not know was the part about non-residents being able to go to any sheriff of their choosing.

10. Their viewpoint is that until SCOTUS overturns it, they can use it. In the meantime, they can use the fight to raise campaign money and cost their opponents money for lawyers (their court costs are being paid by the taxpayers and/or fellow travelers/useful idiots). If the fight goes on long enough, they might get a change in SCOTUS that will rule in their favor.

    Having known a few lawyers who’s grasp of the law isn’t real firm, I expect some actually believe that they do what they want. The rest are on cynical power trips. OK, there might be a few misguided souls who actually believe they’re doing right.

11. Too bad judges in NY and NJ don’t believe in the supremacy doctrine. Here is a quote from page 53 of a college book I have, entitled, “Carper’s Understanding the Law,” seventh edition. “The significance of the supremacy doctrine is that it invalidates any conflicting state law by preemption, meaning that federal law takes precedence over state law in areas of control expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” The Second Amendment is part of The Bill of Rights which is part of the Constitution.

    Of course, the Left always finds a way to get what THEY want.

    • How might this principle apply to states that “legalize” federal schedule 1 drugs such as marijuana? I’d always felt this would entrap firearms owners as prohibited persons. It will be interesting to see how far the current administration will go in buying votes from the “numbers and classes” of prohibited people Eric Holder was directed to increase. I find it ironic how states like New York pick and choose which federal laws or SCOTUS decisions they wish to ignore.

      • You have it right. Under federal law, marijuana users — medicinal and recreational — are prohibited from firearms ownership because marijuana is still a controlled substance at the federal level.

        State laws legalizing drugs are on shaky ground; they (and the “dispensary” businesses that depend on them) survive only because the fed.gov has publicly stated it’s not (currently) interested in pursuing federal drug charges in states that legalized it. But the federal DOJ could change their mind at any time.

        Bottom line (IANAL warning): The 4473 form still asks about using controlled substances, and if a marijuana user tries to purchase a gun they have to either admit to being a user or lie on the 4473 — the latter is still a federal felony the fed.gov WILL pursue, even if they wouldn’t pursue charges for the drugs.

        I believe that was left in place intentionally, as another avenue for Eric Holder (and his successors) to expand the “prohibited persons” lists, like you said.

12. Thanks Mas. Thanks a lot. I own 5 1911 type pistols. A full size with an accessory rail (Kimber TLE-RLII with Surefire X300, my nightstand pistol), a full size traditional (Colt Wiley Clapp 1911), a Kimber Pro Carry 4″ barrel 1911 with Novak wide notch tritium sights, a Kimber 3″ RCP, and a Wiley Clapp CCO. All are equipped with Crimson Trace LaserGrips. I thought my collection was complete. And now you post that photo of a beautiful Stainless Steel 1911 at the top of this article. I don’t have a beautiful stainless steel 1911. My wife’s gonna kill me. And then she’s gonna kill you, too.

13. The Bruen decision and the (now non-existent) TRO mean nothing in NY- and soon- other liberal states. Why? The Constitution does not apply- and they do not care. The Trump presidency hastened the communist push: the fact that any state can simply pass knowingly unconstitutional laws and DARE someone to stop them does not bode well for the republic.

    So we are stuck in New York with essentially no Second Amendment rights- no competent opposition to the communists and we are outnumbered about 9 or 10 to 1. What other rights will fall?

    I guess I can pray for a miracle on election day- but better yet- spend even more time looking for land and jobs in free states. NY does not feel like America, and hasn’t for some time.

14. The Constitution does not apply- and they do not care.

    No offense, but this is incorrect. They do care, a great deal in fact. They hate the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution with a burning passion and will do whatever they feel is necessary to restrict them into non-existence.

    I believe the only thing that will effectively stop them is if SCOTUS rules them in contempt and issues warrants for U.S. Marshals to arrest them and bring them to D.C. to stand trial, not only for contempt, but also for violating 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 (Conspiracy Against Rights and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, respectively), convictions for which would — among other things — prohibit them from holding any public office in the U.S. and all political subdivisions for life. (I don’t envision this ever actually happening, but that’s another issue.)

    That’s what they risk by openly defying SCOTUS, but they hate individual liberty enough to do it anyway. Never assume they don’t care; they do, and that’s part of the problem.

Comments are closed.