If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Someone up above here just said the opposite of this.
More
Litigation Highlight: Angelo v. District of Columbia
firearmslaw.duke.edu
"Antonyuk is not the only ongoing case dealing with sensitive places. Angelo v. District of Columbia, currently pending in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., was filed on June 30 and involves a challenge by several permitholders to Washington D.C.’s designation of the Metro as a sensitive place where guns are banned (the law was passed in 2014, and went into effect the following year)...
As to the Metro specifically, the District seems more likely to succeed on its activities-based argument: that the Metro prohibition is sufficiently similar to “early American laws prohibiting the carrying of arms near parades and on trains” because such laws illustrate a historical tradition of prohibiting guns in areas of dense congregation or around official government activities. Specifically, the airport/airplane comparison seems apt, as those are also locations which simply did not exist at the time of the Founding but where few doubt that guns can be banned today...
The plaintiffs cite an 1803 observation by St. George Tucker that it was common for Americans to leave home armed with a rifle or musket. The District, on the other hand, relies on historical laws in the militia context as evidence that normal civilians did not commonly carry arms in public at the time. If judges are to evaluate modern gun regulations by reference to historical laws, there should presumably be some showing that people actually used guns in the manner contemplated during the Founding Era. If guns were not normally carried in certain public settings as a matter of custom, then what we today view as a lack of regulation may just be evidence that there was no need for government to regulate in that setting. The difficult question, of course, is how courts should resolve differing accounts of social custom that might exist in the historical record."
Not going to hold my breath. They will pull the shit NY just did.
OK, so don't believe the other guys, just you. Got it.
I completely agree. Just saying that so far they've seemed to use that as an excuse. Until they're told they can't, I'd expect them to continue on that path.
www.wsj.com
The entire subway, public places as sensitive is just plain nuts. Sensitive places what is sensitive about a subway or a city/town square.More
The anti-gun legal academics really have their shorts in a knot, especially over sensitive places. In their view, the commonality of historical analogs where guns are prohibited in some places where some people gather is sufficient to call any places where any people might gather sensitives places. They are truly freaking out that honest, law-abiding citizens with CCW licenses might legally carry guns where criminals do so every day.
"At the outset, Judge Suddaby made two observations about the Bruen test. He articulated a standard for judging historical laws under which “a historical statute cannot earn the title ‘analogue’ if it is clearly more distinguishable than it is similar to the thing to which it is compared.” Second, he stated that he would “generally . . . look[] to instances where there have been three or more . . . historical analogues (specifically, three or more historical analogues from states, given that such analogues from territories deserve less weight under NYSRPA . . .).” In other words, Judge Suddaby found that three historical laws is the relevant cutoff—anything less than three is an “aberration” or a “mere trend,” but adoption by a majority of states at the time is not required."
"The opinion uses an extremely narrow frame to evaluate potential analogues to locations on New York’s sensitive places list. Do historical laws banning guns in schools support a prohibition on guns in summer camps? No, the opinion says, without any analysis. May guns be banned on the subway and other modes of public transportation? No, because historical laws banning concealed carry often made explicit exceptions for travelers, as travel was considered dangerous. Are historical laws prohibiting guns at “public assemblies” sufficient to support a modern ban on guns in stadiums, performance venues, and concert halls? No, the judge says, because in his view “the term ‘public assembly’ appears somewhat like the term ‘popular assembly,’” which “appears to involve a focus on one’s constitutional rights.” Are historical laws banning guns on enclosed farms or plantations analogous to a modern law enacting a presumption that guns are prohibited in privately-owned businesses? No, because the historical laws did not apply to buildings, only farmland."
MA will have a Looney Dem Governor in 2023 also. But Fuher Healey so far seems to be mostly following the law as AG.
Like I stated earlier after Queen Maura's coronation she will be free to do whatever she wants because she has no challengers in the State. It seems she doesn't want to die on the hill of anti-2A gun control after the Bruen decision. She had bigger fish to fry (climate change and oil companies) and she has National ambitions. Next year will be interesting especially after the Dems get destroyed in the midterms and R's control the House and hopefully the Senate.
lets hope so
GOAL's has a new NYSRPA vs. Bruen t-shirt featuring Justice Thomas.
At the GOAL store
And they have big boy sizes.
I am 6'4" (yes unusual for a tabby cat) and anything under 4x shrinks in length first wash to show my belly button (also unusual for a tabby cat).
Get a cool shirt, tout the Bruen decision, honor Justice Thomas, and support GOAL all at the same time.
Too cool, yes?
Note: I had to go to the bottom right corner to set currency to US $ it defaulted to Euro
firearmslaw.duke.edu
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Also, if this is happening at the same time that police are being defunded and officers that are working are afraid to be proactive, then crime or "gun violence" may go up.Bruen’s Practical Impact: What We Know and Where We are Going
“Perhaps the most important empirical question in the aftermath of Bruen will be whether the decision leads to a statistically significant increase in gun violence in former may-issue states.”
“Gun violence” is the wrong measure - “criminal victimization” and “lawful defense gun use” are relevant measures. The left will be counting every gun and bullet legally bought, every bullet fired, month by month to claim a rise in gun violence before any statistical significance emerges. And they will scrupulously avoid gathering any data or doing any analysis that doesn’t support their ends.
What is it about honest, law-abiding citizens of NY, CA, NJ, MD, CT, DE, HI, RI & MA that would induce them to become violent felons if readily given shall-issue RKBA? Even with the more rigorous state background checks, application requirements & reviews and training requirements of these states, are citizens of these states somehow more mentally unsuitable or prone to criminal intentions? Of course not.
Is there something about the decaying urban centers lead by Democrats that might see more guns brandished and bullets fired post-Bruen? If good citizens decide to venture once again into misbegotten parts of town - maybe so. If residents of these misbegotten parts of town decide to walk their own streets again - maybe so.
I call this a good thing - not gun violence.
The authors do pay lip-service to DGU statistics, but find good reasons to be critical of self-reported DGUs, even if paragraphs earlier they reference “30% of surveyed Generation-Z members had experienced gun violence personally and an additional 24% had a friend or family member who had” Without such a caveat. They are prepared to dismiss any data/analysis showing a positive impact of Bruen before such any such data/analysis exists.
Motivated Cognition is a self-imposed blindness that particularly affects those who believe they have the power to see what other cannot see.
Good point - most junk gun control studies will not adequately control for confounding variables. ”Former” May-Issue states were deep blue with cities doing a lot of defunding and losing LEOs by the hundreds. Dems are “tough on crime” in word only until mid-November this year, so their continued demise will drive increased crime unrelated to Bruen.
Seems like it did not take long....but I am not up on usual timelines for this stuff...
Federal appeals court temporarily restores New York gun law
A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday to undo temporarily a lower court's decision that blocked New York's new gun law that would tighten concealed carry requirements.
I think at present you can only say that in that circuit it removes the criminal penalty for possessing a gun without a s/n. The contours beyond that are unknown.
