Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

[M1911]

Upon first reading this, I thought you were talking about making the police equal to everyone else. I thought I read somewhere that was a part of this Bruen deal. Maybe not. It's a question as much as anything else.

I’m not sure how you got that from what I wrote.

The unstated goal of discretionary licensing is to keep poor and minorities from being able to own and carry guns. That is how it works out in practice. Discretionary licensing is fundamentally racist at its core.

 

[drgrant]

The list of places - businesses without a permission to be armed notice; times square; etc. are sufficient to render the pre-Bruen NYC "special full carry" permits nearly useless, as well as the unrestricted non-NYC NY permits help by upstaters many of who live in what are almost "shall issue" by practice. There isn't really an appeal resistant mechanism to grant "first class" permits to the important and "second class permits" to the ordinaries. To those who used their position, fame or power to get the old NYC full carry permits - welcome to being treated like everyone else.

Yeah but think of the relative impact. The NYC elites aren't /ever/ riding subways, etc. OR hanging around times square. In practical sense 60% of these restrictions are irrelevant to them.

The NYC antis know that their BS probably won't survive wholly intact so they are ramping up the obstructionist rhetoric to deter applications.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yeah but think of the relative impact. The NYC elites aren't /ever/ riding subways, etc. OR hanging around times square. In practical sense 60% of these restrictions are irrelevant to them.

The NYC antis know that their BS probably won't survive wholly intact so they are ramping up the obstructionist rhetoric to deter applications.

I also expect that any important person requesting permission to enter a business armed for the purpose of spending money would be welcomed.

 

[Coyote33]

non violent felon restrictions will definitely fall

Here I was thinking the AWB and magazine limits was asking a lot. This is above and beyond.

There is already precedent for non-violent felons having guns.

Then again.

Allowed felonies at the federal level

How about where someone said the police guy or state trooper was a felon, but carried on the badge?

 

[Hoover]

Here I was thinking the AWB and magazine limits was asking a lot. This is above and beyond.



Then again.



How about where someone said the police guy or state trooper was a felon, but carried on the badge?

Barrett wrote the dissent in Kanter v Barr, a non violent felon prohibited for life. Her dissent is exactly along the lines of what Thomas wrote in the majority opinion in NYSRPA. The majority in Kanter used intermediate scrutiny with the compelling govt interest bs basically every anti 2A ruling used from 2009-2022.

The dissent in the NJ mag limit case, which lost 2-1 but was just vacated and remanded back to the 3rd circuit, was by Matey (trump) and used the same NYSRPA language. There was a felon prohibition case in the 3 a few years ago too, I believe that lost 2-1 and SCOTUS pre Barrett didn’t accept it

I think the non violent prohibition falls within the next 5 years. I think there’s a decent chance the felon prohibition falls for all felons unless the govt can prove the person is a future risk. That’s how it was when the 2nd was drafted. There isn’t a text or history of the govt banning possession for life unless they were an ongoing threat.

Here’s the Kanter ruling and Barrett’s dissent. Kanter v. Barr, No. 18-1478 (7th Cir. 2019)

 

[Garys]

Of course, they hung bad guys when the 2A was written. Plus, they didn't prosecute people who shot in self defense. There are a lot of crimes that are felonies now that didn't exist back then either. Things l like interstate sale of flower seed without a federal license.

I'd be happy if they decided that non violent felonies, especially violations of stupid federal regulations were removed from the PP list.

Barrett wrote the dissent in Kanter v Barr, a non violent felon prohibited for life. Her dissent is exactly along the lines of what Thomas wrote in the majority opinion in NYSRPA. The majority in Kanter used intermediate scrutiny with the compelling govt interest bs basically every anti 2A ruling used from 2009-2022.

The dissent in the NJ mag limit case, which lost 2-1 but was just vacated and remanded back to the 3rd circuit, was by Matey (trump) and used the same NYSRPA language. There was a felon prohibition case in the 3 a few years ago too, I believe that lost 2-1 and SCOTUS pre Barrett didn’t accept it

I think the non violent prohibition falls within the next 5 years. I think there’s a decent chance the felon prohibition falls for all felons unless the govt can prove the person is a future risk. That’s how it was when the 2nd was drafted. There isn’t a text or history of the govt banning possession for life unless they were an ongoing threat.

Here’s the Kanter ruling and Barrett’s dissent. Kanter v. Barr, No. 18-1478 (7th Cir. 2019)

 

[Hoover]

Of course, they hung bad guys when the 2A was written. Plus, they didn't prosecute people who shot in self defense. There are a lot of crimes that are felonies now that didn't exist back then either. Things l like interstate sale of flower seed without a federal license.

I'd be happy if they decided that non violent felonies, especially violations of stupid federal regulations were removed from the PP list.

At a minimum non violent and at least sunset the violent felon prohibited. A fight at 21 makes someone a PP for life, that’s insane.

 

[Garys]

A fight at 21 without weapons and with no serious injuries shouldn't be a felony. Depending on the circumstances, it shouldn't even be a crime. Sadly, it seems that the police are pressed to arrest SOMEONE whenever they make contact. It's common practice for many departments to have officers request ID from everyone at an incident even if they aren't involved. They then run warrant checks to see if anyone is wanted.

I'm convinced that's why in those towns they respond to medical calls even if there is no crime involved.

At a minimum non violent and at least sunset the violent felon prohibited. A fight at 21 makes someone a PP for life, that’s insane.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

At a minimum non violent and at least sunset the violent felon prohibited. A fight at 21 makes someone a PP for life, that’s insane.

Try 11, not 21 . Any finding of juvenile delinquency in MA is a lifetime state level prohibition if the action giving rise to the delinquency could be prosected as a felony, sealed records aren't, and the MA SJC has upheld this practice.

 

[whatluck]

A fight at 21 without weapons and with no serious injuries shouldn't be a felony. Depending on the circumstances, it shouldn't even be a crime. Sadly, it seems that the police are pressed to arrest SOMEONE whenever they make contact. It's common practice for many departments to have officers request ID from everyone at an incident even if they aren't involved. They then run warrant checks to see if anyone is wanted.

I'm convinced that's why in those towns they respond to medical calls even if there is no crime involved.

if theres ever a fight, run away after. poke in the eye, throw a smoke bomb, hop a fence, climb the outside of a parking garage, hop on a ducati, and peace tf out like GTA5.

sokolove aint taking my house, son

 

[Lank]

A fight at 21 without weapons and with no serious injuries shouldn't be a felony. Depending on the circumstances, it shouldn't even be a crime. Sadly, it seems that the police are pressed to arrest SOMEONE whenever they make contact. It's common practice for many departments to have officers request ID from everyone at an incident even if they aren't involved. They then run warrant checks to see if anyone is wanted.

I'm convinced that's why in those towns they respond to medical calls even if there is no crime involved.

Some sort of leading indicator for depts?

 

[Lank]

Try 11, not 21 . Any finding of juvenile delinquency in MA is a lifetime state level prohibition if the action giving rise to the delinquency could be prosected as a felony, sealed records aren't, and the MA SJC has upheld this practice.

I am convinced most of the sentences that could be imposed in mass were purposely created to result in PP status.

 

[M1911]

I am convinced most of the sentences that could be imposed in mass were purposely created to result in PP status.

I think you are giving the state legislators way too much credit. They aren’t smart enough or competent enough to think that far.

 

[Lank]

I think you are giving the state legislators way too much credit. They aren’t smart enough or competent enough to think that far.

Perhaps, but remember that the left has always demanded submission. Not likely a coincidence

 

[Dadstoys]

A fight at 21 without weapons and with no serious injuries shouldn't be a felony. Depending on the circumstances, it shouldn't even be a crime. Sadly, it seems that the police are pressed to arrest SOMEONE whenever they make contact. It's common practice for many departments to have officers request ID from everyone at an incident even if they aren't involved. They then run warrant checks to see if anyone is wanted.

I'm convinced that's why in those towns they respond to medical calls even if there is no crime involved.

And snoop around the house.