What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

New York Enacts Ridiculous New Gun Laws: "I’m A NYC Liberal, And I Want A Gun" (7/3/22 20:29 PST) (1 Viewer)

GordonGekko

Footballguy
VIDEO: New York Enacts Ridiculous New Gun Laws In Response To Supreme Court Ruling Jul 3, 2022 Colion Noir

In response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined sections of New York's concealed carry statute were unconstitutional, (NYSRPA v. Bruen) Democrats in the New York State Legislature on Friday passed a slew of new restrictions affecting legal gun owners. There is an extensive list of hurdles including having applicants disclose their current and past social media accounts so the licensing officer could review them to see if anything the applicant may have posted would, in the mind of the licensing officer, be objectionable and disqualify the applicant. If an applicant clears all of the hurdles involved in obtaining a concealed carry permit, they would have to be aware of an extensive list of places where it would still be illegal for them to be armed. They include government buildings, schools, colleges and universities, medical facilities, churches, libraries, and entertainment venues such as libraries, theaters, arenas, and stadiums. Legal gun owners with concealed carry permits would also be prohibited from carrying in a park, on a playground, at a polling place, at a parade or a protest, or while using public transit. They also could not carry while in a bar, or even in a restaurant that serves alcohol.

In fact, under the new laws, they couldn't enter any private business or property with a legally registered gun, unless that business or property owner posted a sign which says they can. And even if they mistakenly carry someplace they shouldn't, they could be charged with a felony where, if convicted, they would lose their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. While it's long been established in the state's law that a felony record bars an individual from legally purchasing or processing a firearm, the new law would add several misdemeanors to the category of infractions that would disqualify an individual from owning a gun. This isn't even all of it! These people are not trying to protect you they're trying to control you and protect their power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeyKO-FYfNk

Direct Headline: NY Senate OKs bill barring guns in Times Square, requiring social media info for permit

The New York state Senate approved sweeping legislation Friday afternoon that would ban concealed weapons from so-called “sensitive locations” like Times Square, public transit and other venues — while requiring gun permit applicants to give the state information about their social media accounts as well as character references. ...The Assembly passed the bill Friday night and soon after Gov. Kathy Hochul signed it into law....Debate on the bill began early Friday, one day after the extraordinary legislative session called by Hochul began — a delay attributed to last-minute negotiations over a conceptual deal touted by the governor earlier in the week....

....“Hochul’s special session has been the perfect recap of her failed, brief term as Governor, marked with secrecy, uncertainty, and chaos. The losers of this process end up being law-abiding New Yorkers,” Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-Suffolk), the GOP nominee for governor, said in a statement. ...The special session follows a controversial US Supreme Court decision last week that struck down a century-old state law requiring permit applicants to give a “proper cause” for wanting to pack heat....Democratic lawmakers vowed to tighten the gun permit application process following the Supreme Court decision to overturn New York’s regulation....

....Among other information, potential firearm owners would be asked to divulge all social media accounts maintained over the past three years as well as provide references attesting to their “good moral character.”...Permit applicants will also have to complete at least 16 hours of in-person training, while private businesses will be off-limits to firearms unless their owners post conspicuous signage indicating otherwise....Weapons will also be barred from places of worship, public transit, sports arenas, parks, libraries, government buildings, playgrounds, entertainment venues, protests and businesses that serve alcohol, among other venues....Future ammunition purchases will require background checks in the future under the new law, with information on the buyer’s “date, name,  age,  occupation and residence” entered into a state database, according to the legislation....

“They didn’t just go up to the line. They trampled on the Supreme Court decision,” said Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.... 

By Zach Williams July 1, 2022 2:30pm

https://nypost.com/2022/07/01/new-york-bill-would-require-social-media-info-for-gun-carry-permit/

TWEET: Anne McCloy  XX@XXAnneMcCloyNews

Anne: Do you have numbers to show that it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes?

Hochul: I don’t need to have numbers. I don’t need to have a data point to say this. I know that I have a responsibility for this state to have sensible gun safety laws.

4:16 PM  Jun 29, 2022

https://twitter.com/AnneMcCloyNews/status/1542285958703366146

Direct Headline: I’m a New York City Liberal, and I Want a Gun

I lived in New York for a decade without fearing for my personal safety. But in recent months, I have been terrified. ...More than five million American women alive today have reported being threatened with a gun, shot or shot at by an intimate partner, and more than half of the perpetrators of mass shootings in the past decade shot a family member, intimate partner or former intimate partner as part of their rampage. Every month, 70 women on average are shot and killed by an intimate partner. But states like mine make it legally cumbersome to defend yourself with a legally purchased handgun...If my life is ever in danger, I want to be able to protect myself with a gun. And now, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, I am one step closer to carrying one....

....I also understand why some of my fellow liberals would like to ban guns outright. But guns are already prevalent among those who don’t follow the rules: Despite strong gun laws in my state and city, illegal trafficking abounds...The reality is that in addition to preventing abusers from owning guns, we must empower vulnerable citizens to protect themselves...For law-abiding New Yorkers, there is currently no swift and easy way to protect yourself in your own home with a handgun. Even if you have no criminal record, no history of mental illness and no desire to carry a gun outside of your home, you must apply for an expensive handgun license. On June 23, the Supreme Court struck down an additional requirement to demonstrate a heightened need, or “proper cause,” if you want to carry your gun in public....

An associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s Department of Public Management told me that based on anecdotal evidence, generally retired police officers, people who transport large sums of money, those who have an immediate and credible death threat and celebrities are more likely to be approved for licenses to carry handguns in public. And given the high cost of the application process, gun ownership is only really available to those with means....

...But the truth is that the world we live in is awash in illegal guns. Ghost guns, which are assembled from components bought online and are untraceable, are prevalent in coastal states with strict gun laws, and hundreds have been seized by the New York City Police Department in recent years. New York’s onerous gun licensing requirements deter law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. And while city officials boast that gun arrests are at a 28-year high and shooting incidents were down last month, murder, rape, robbery and assault were all on the rise when compared with the same time last year.....

By Laura E. Adkins June 30, 2022

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/opinion/supreme-court-guns-new-york.html

************

 "The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury...." 

 - United States Supreme Court, Elrod v. Burns 1976

On June 23, 2022, SCOTUS reversed a US Court of Appeals’ decision, finding that New York’s proper cause requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to have and carry a concealed pistol or revolver was unconstitutional.  It violated the 14th Amendment by "preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public."  New York’s proper cause requirement had forced state residents to demonstrate a "special need" for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general public. After said individual passes all other requirements for a permit, it was then at a judge’s discretion to determine if an individual had "proper cause". Governor Hochul found the SCOTUS ruling completely unacceptable and incompatible with her political career designs and NY Senate Bill S51001 was introduced, passed, and signed in a mere 12 hours.

The problems?  You have to surrender your social media accounts to be reviewed. Which encroaches on multiple First Amendment issues. Does Hochul believe she can have her minions arbitrarily reach out to the tech companies with your username and scoop up all the data and implied communications from your accounts, even deleted material? And let's not pretend Big Social Media and Big Tech, which lean hard activist radical left, wouldn't be all too happy to comply with those requests too. Does Hochul think she can require New Yorkers to have their personal information strictly tied to their posts online, or demand Big Tech to create NY specific algorithms to spot "threatening/illegal speech" and flag it for review? Does Hochul realize she's asking for a dystopian surveillance state? The Obama regime has shown that these kind of methods are typically used to track, hunt and punish political opponent first and foremost. And this idiot Hochul wants Americans, especially New Yorkers, to surrender to her this level of control over our data?

What's the end goal? (Well besides Hochul offer "fresh meat to her base" for reelection)? Make New Yorkers live in total fear over where they can carry firearms, and be unsure of when they’ll be charged with criminal possession of a firearm for walking into a “restricted” place by accident. The end result is law abiding citizens would simply not want to deal with the hassle, stress and threat and refuse to exercise their rights. Of course this avoids the out of control crime issues in NY right now by idiotic Team Blue pro-crime public policies and "bail reform" and Defund The Police. Thus if no law abiding New Yorkers can safely carry in public, even under the protection of Supreme Court supposedly, then the only people left with firearms will be the criminals.

And it appears that "off duty" police are not exempt from carrying while in these "restricted areas".  Given the tens of thousands in the NYPD, and the difficulty in major cities holding onto law enforcement personnel who are quitting and retiring in droves over anti-law enforcement sentiment and policies, how does this help? If the concern is active/mass shooters, as Hochul has harped on before, why disarm off duty cops who might be the first effective gun on the scene in such a potential tragedy?

Of course, there will likely be an immediate injunction filed soon. As what Hochul and the NY Senate is doing spits in the face of the SCOTUS ruling. This will mostly like fast track into the 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals or the NY Supreme Court and then the judges there will have to weigh their political alliances to Team Blue and Hochul or join in facing the inevitable wrath of SCOTUS as they apply more and more strict scrutiny to invasive Team Blue legal overreach only designed to politically capitalize on a wedge issue in the national daily media cycle.

But consider the broad overreach here - (n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals - where are you going to go in New York that isn't restricted?

Of course Hochul's action are coordinated with the DNC and the Biden Administration. As they were in California where AG Rob Bonta doxxed gun owners. And why did he do that? Roe V Wade was about the battle over the "right to privacy" as a pathway to abortion rights. So Bonta decided to violate literally every possible ethical standard in the book to torch all Golden State gun owners rights to privacy in response. Never mind that all criminals now know whose homes to target and rob to find more firearms to commit even more violent crimes.

I haven't been to my place in Brooklyn since the pandemic started, but my taxes pay the salaries of these nimrods. Both Bonta and Hochul. All she cares about is reelection, the rights of actual American citizens be damned. What about the entire concept of liberty?  What about the entire concept of government accountability? And Hochul has admitted in a press conference that facts have no place in her gutless policies if they don’t immediately confirm to her personal biases or risks her personal political career.

And none of her efforts nor time nor work nor energy nor focus here is on making the lives of everyday working class New Yorkers better. Crime has exploded in New York and even despite having the strictest gun laws in the entire country. How about fixing that problem instead?  You can't enable career criminals, let lawlessness reign and kneecap your law enforcement agencies and then demand all New Yorkers be disarmed to be left out as prey.

But Kathy Hochul doesn't care if New Yorkers are prey. She doesn't see them as prey. Like most of other Team Blue woke elitist grifters, she just sees them as cattle.

I'll leave this here for others to discuss.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

GordonGekko

Footballguy
CONTEXTUAL MATERIAL (Kathy Hochul Wants Brand Name Recognition For Reelection)  :

The New York State Senate Senate Bill S51001 - Signed By Governor

2021-2022 Legislative Session - Relates to licensing and other provisions relating to firearms

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s51001

On June 24, 2022, Governor Hochul issued a proclamation for an extraordinary session “to pass new gun safety legislation in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.” ...On July 1, 2022, This bill passed in the Senate and the Assembly and was signed by the Governor. This bill amends the penal law, general business law, executive law, civil practice law, and state finance law as they relate to the licensing of firearms. This bill does the following:

- Updates the definition of good moral character to mean “the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others”

- Requires existing permit holders to complete the training required (16 hours in person training covering general firearm safety, safe storage requirements, state and federal gun laws, situational awareness, conflict de-escalations, best practices when encountering law enforcement, what are defined as sensitive places, conflict management, use of deadly force, suicide prevention, basic principles of marksmanship, 2 hours of life fire range training. score at least an 80% on a written test based on the curriculum) in order to rectify their license.

- Expands the reasons for denial to include having a guardian appointed due to incompetency

- Expands the crimes an individual has been convicted of within the last 5 years that result in the denial of a permit to include, assault in the third degree, misdemeanor driving while intoxicated, and menacing.

- Requires applicant to meet with the licensing officer for an in-person interview

- Requires applicant to provide:

A) The names and contact information for the applicant's current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant's home

B) The names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant's good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others

C) A certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this 21 section

D) A list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicant’s character and conduct

E) Any other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application

- Requires a license to take possession of a semiautomatic rifle

- Updates the license to have and carry concealed to be subject to the restrictions of state and federal law

- Requires licenses to be recertified or renewed every 3 years

- Licenses issued more than 3 years ago need to (verify) or renewed within one year.

- Allows conduct that would result in the denial of a license to be grounds for revocation.

- Requires licensing officers to revoke any license issued where the applicant knowingly made a material false statement on the application.

- Creates “Criminal possession of a firearm, rifle, or shotgun in a sensitive location” (non-detailed exceptions for law enforcement, security guards, government employees, persons hunting/hunter educational training)

- A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location, and such person knows or reasonably should know such location is a sensitive location.

Place owned or under the control of federal, state, or local government (government administration or courts)

(b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services;

(c) any place of worship or religious observation;

(d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos;

(e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to operate such program has been issued by the department of health and mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York;

(f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps

(g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities

(h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports

(i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health

(j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance

(k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence

(l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health

(m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, on-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools

(n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals

(o) any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;

(p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission

(q) any location being used as a polling place / any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage

(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble

(t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.

- A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a restricted location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location, and such person knows or reasonably should know that the owner or lessee of such property has not permitted possession by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted or has given consent

- Unless you are a police officer, peace officer, security guard while at your place of employment during work hours, active-duty military, or a person lawfully engaged in hunting activity.

- Requires the Division of Criminal Justice Services, along with the state police, to do a monthly check the statewide license and record database against criminal convictions. criminal indictment, mental health, extreme risk protection orders, orders of protection, and all other records.

- Creates a statewide license and record database for ammunition sales

- Requires seller of ammunition or dealer in firearms to keep an electronic record of ammunition transactions.

- Requires individuals to store rifles, shotguns, or firearms, left in their car, in a safe without ammunition and out of sight

- Makes it unlawful to wear body armor while committing a violent felony offense.

- Creates Section 288 in the Executive Law, Article 11, requiring the Division of the State Police (DSP) to become the point of contact for the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) system when an individual tried to buy a firearm or ammunition.

- DSP will create and maintain a statewide firearms license and records database containing records held by DSP, Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Court Administration, New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Mental Health, and other local entities. This database will be used for the certification and recertification of firearms permits and to initiate NICS checks.

- The Bureau shall submit a report to the governor, the temporary president of the senate, and the speaker of the assembly, detailing the number of bureau employees, the number of background checks received and processed, the calculations behind the background fee to dealers

- Being convicted of having a firearm, rifle, or shotgun in a sensitive location is a felony.

- Requires safe storage at home if a child under the age of 18 resides in the house or if you live with a prohibited person

- Requires safe storage inside of a vehicle that is out of sight from outside of the vehicle, when firearm, rifle, shotgun is not in immediate control of the owner.

- Updates the definition of Rifle to include muzzle loading rifles, flintlock rifles, and black power rifles

- Updates the definition of Shotgun to include rifled bores and those using old ammo including muzzle loading shotguns, flintlock shotguns, and black power shotguns

 
Last edited by a moderator:

GordonGekko

Footballguy
CONTEXTUAL MATERIAL (NY Laws Are Speed-bumps For Hochul's Political Donors)  :

Direct Headline: Liquor license denial was quickly reversed for Hochul donor

Attorney familiar with State Liquor Authority bureaucracy said the process would normally take months, not days...After 6 p.m. that evening, Hochul’s policy director was called to fix a problem carrying narrower implications for the general public. Micah Lasher received an email from Paul Millstein, executive vice president of Douglas Development, whose multi-millionaire founder has given Hochul significant campaign donations....Staff at the State Liquor Authority had denied a liquor license to a Millstein business associate and tenant, then rejected an appeal of the denial. Millstein was seeking a reversal with help from Hochul's office....When Millstein sent the email, he copied Hochul's top campaign fundraiser, Abby Erwin — who in the past has facilitated contact between major Hochul donors and Executive Chamber officials...

....Within five days, the chairman of the State Liquor Authority would overturn the denial by agency staff. A week later, the brewery obtained a liquor license, avoiding a months-long wait behind other applicants...."That's lightning speed," said an attorney who regularly practices before the liquor authority and spoke to the Times Union on the condition of anonymity. "I've never seen the process work that quickly, especially under this chairman. So the question is, do only millionaires get approved in seven days, rather than six months?"...

Douglas Development’s founder, Douglas Jemal, donated $53,700 to Hochul’s campaign last month. His associate, Millstein, donated $5,000 in January. They had a history of generosity: When Hochul was lieutenant governor, the company, Jemal and Millstein, gave Hochul's campaign $32,000....Since Hochul became governor in August, she has raised an unprecedented $34 million over 10 months, money that helped her win the Democratic gubernatorial primary on Tuesday. Much of the fundraising came from large donors with interests before her administration....

Chris Bragg July 2, 2022 9:10 a.m.

https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/After-Hochul-donor-complaint-license-denial-was-17276613

Direct Headline: Disgraced Ex-Cop Says NYPD Overlooked Requirements For Big Shots To Get Full-Carry Gun Licenses Due To Donations

....former commander in the NYPD's gun-licensing bureau claims certain people got star treatment when it came to applying for gun permits in the city....The list includes celebrities, politicians and businessmen...Big name, big money -- that's all it took to get a full-carry gun license from the Police Department, even if the applicant didn't qualify....Dean said high-profile politicians, entrepreneurs and an even an actor with a prior felony conviction skated past requirements because of their generous donations to the Police Athletic League or New York City Police Foundation...Dean accused NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller of instructing his supervisor to continue the "favor system" for retirees and donors...The NYPD says it has implemented a number of reforms in the License Division, including new management, more comprehensive background checks and increased supervision and accountability.

January 24, 2019 / 5:33 PM / CBS New York

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nypd-bribes-full-carry-gun-licenses-paul-dean/

Direct Headline: REPORT: California AG Leaks Names, Addresses Of Gun Owners In The State

The California Attorney General’s Office (Rob Bonta) leaked the named and addresses of thousands of gun owners across the state...Files leaked from the database included the home addresses, full names and dates of birth for every gun owner in the state... The leak included the private information of 244 judges and 420 reserve officers in addition to thousands of private civilians.

“Today’s announcement puts power and information into the hands of our communities by helping them better understand the role and potential dangers of firearms within our state,” Bonta said of the dashboard....At the time of publication, the link to the dashboard alerts users the website is “temporarily unavailable.”....“We are working swiftly to address this situation and will provide additional information as soon as possible....”

Sarah Weaver June 28, 2022 4:37 PM ET

https://dailycaller.com/2022/06/28/california-attorney-general-leaks-names-addresses-registry-gun-owners

VIDEO: The Truth About The Supreme Court's Gun Ruling Jun 24, 2022 Colion Noir

The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves. (NYSRPA v. Bruen) I want you to pay attention to how the people pushing for gun control are reacting to this decision because this decision is saying nothing more than yes; people have a right to carry a firearm to protect themselves in public. Right now, you have every anti-gun group, anti-gun politician, and even our president saying this was not the right decision. They are saying they do not believe you have the right to carry a firearm for your protection.

These people do not agree with the second amendment! It's not about making reasonable gun control laws; they don't want you to have guns, period. They want to get to the point where they can ban handguns, but they don't want to give anything, so when they lose something i.e, the ability to restrict people's rights in new york to carry a firearm to protect themselves, all of a sudden they're mad. The court made clear that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right “to keep and bear arms” protects a broad right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Thomas wrote, that if “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct,” the government has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Going forward, Thomas explained, courts should uphold gun restrictions only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history. I explain the breakdown of the Supreme Court Ruling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwJmxIKVvIw

 

BladeRunner

Footballguy
So crazy States like NY are just going to keep doing illegal end-arounds to the Constitution to get what they want, I guess.  It will take years for someone to sue the state over these new and illegal "laws" and get some kind of decision by the court, unless a lower court puts them on hold while they are adjudicated.

I don't see how these laws stand up to judicial scrutiny.  Seems quite illegal on it's face.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

djmich

Footballguy
So is the idea that the government will inspect your social media accounts to make sure you’re saying the right things and can own a gun.

I understand the need for background checks and how social media could in theory be used appropriately, but this seems to be another example of when you actually say the idea out loud you realize how problematic it is.

 

BladeRunner

Footballguy
So is the idea that the government will inspect your social media accounts to make sure you’re saying the right things and can own a gun.

I understand the need for background checks and how social media could in theory be used appropriately, but this seems to be another example of when you actually say the idea out loud you realize how problematic it is.


Right?  I mean, c'mon.  Those Democrats had to know what this sounded like as they were crafting these, no?

I guess they just think they'll have a stranglehold on NY forever and the GOP will never have power in the State so they can get away with this.

 

Juxtatarot

Footballguy
These people are not trying to protect you they're trying to control you and protect their power
This is an example of what is wrong with people following politics today. It’s one thing to think the other side is misguided in trying to find solutions to problems. It’s entirely different to think their motivations are sinister.

 

Rich Conway

Footballguy
So is the idea that the government will inspect your social media accounts to make sure you’re saying the right things and can own a gun.

I understand the need for background checks and how social media could in theory be used appropriately, but this seems to be another example of when you actually say the idea out loud you realize how problematic it is.
Weren't most of the 2A folks just recently telling us (in the context of "guns aren't the problem") how society should have done a better job of evaluating the Uvalde shooter's social media history to prevent him from obtaining a gun?

 

djmich

Footballguy
Weren't most of the 2A folks just recently telling us (in the context of "guns aren't the problem") how society should have done a better job of evaluating the Uvalde shooter's social media history to prevent him from obtaining a gun?
I dunno what other people are saying, can only speak for myself.

Im not good with the government combing through my social media, text messages, phone conversations or whatever as a prerequisite to ensure I am saying the right things and can obtain a license.  I’m not good with them requiring that I have a social media presence to obtain a license.

As I said above I understand the intent, if not abused, but not something I’m willing to trust.  Same as the “misinformation board”.

That said, it’s not incongruent with wanting society to do a better job.  Parents and schools  should seek counseling for kids that are unstable.  I don’t know much of the details about the Uvalde shooter but I’m highly skeptical that he or any motivated killer or criminal is going to let the need for a license get in the way of obtaining a gun.

That doesn’t mean we still shouldn’t have requirements to obtain a gun and I’m supportive of enhancing them where the trade-offs are acceptable.  Inviting the government to troll my postings is not a level of invasiveness that I think is worth the potential downsides of abuse.

 

Rich Conway

Footballguy
I dunno what other people are saying, can only speak for myself.

Im not good with the government combing through my social media, text messages, phone conversations or whatever as a prerequisite to ensure I am saying the right things and can obtain a license.  I’m not good with them requiring that I have a social media presence to obtain a license.

As I said above I understand the intent, if not abused, but not something I’m willing to trust.  Same as the “misinformation board”.

That said, it’s not incongruent with wanting society to do a better job.  Parents and schools  should seek counseling for kids that are unstable.  I don’t know much of the details about the Uvalde shooter but I’m highly skeptical that he or any motivated killer or criminal is going to let the need for a license get in the way of obtaining a gun.

That doesn’t mean we still shouldn’t have requirements to obtain a gun and I’m supportive of enhancing them where the trade-offs are acceptable.  Inviting the government to troll my postings is not a level of invasiveness that I think is worth the potential downsides of abuse.
Some questions.  1. Do you think it's reasonable for government to make some effort to ascertain whether John Doe is a high risk candidate (i.e. likely to go on a rampage) for gun ownership?  2. In your opinion, what would be the most effective methods to do that?  3. Are there any methods you wouldn't find overly invasive or questionable?

 

djmich

Footballguy
1.  Yes.

2.  Criminal background checks for all guns purchases would be an example.  As another example I’d be open to something like no past history of psych evaluations that concluded a potential harm to society…just throwing it out there, not thought through.

3.  See 2

 

Rich Conway

Footballguy
1.  Yes.

2.  Criminal background checks for all guns purchases would be an example.  As another example I’d be open to something like no past history of psych evaluations that concluded a potential harm to society…just throwing it out there, not thought through.

3.  See 2
Let's consider the Uvalde shooter as an example.  Should he have been prohibited from purchasing a gun?  If so, on what grounds?

 

Cowboysfan8

Footballguy
Weren't most of the 2A folks just recently telling us (in the context of "guns aren't the problem") how society should have done a better job of evaluating the Uvalde shooter's social media history to prevent him from obtaining a gun?
Society should have. You know, his “friends” or whoever sees his posts

Not the government lol

 

djmich

Footballguy
Let's consider the Uvalde shooter as an example.  Should he have been prohibited from purchasing a gun?  If so, on what grounds?
I don’t know enough about the uvalde shooter to comment.

That said I understand and am accepting of the fact that not every mass murderer will be prevented from obtaining a gun legally and that there are additional preventative measures that could be taken but not worth the associated trade-offs.

I also understand and am accepting of the fact that we provide driving licenses to people that will drink and drive and kill people.  This kills way more people than mass murderers.  I don’t think we should comb peoples social media profiles to see if they have a tendency to party hard and drink heavily as a potential mechanism to not grant a license to drive.  Do you?  And driving isn’t even a protected right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stealthycat

Footballguy
I'm sure crime will fall dramatically with these new rules/laws

NYC has been brilliant on keeping its citizens safe from criminals the last few years :(

 

Rich Conway

Footballguy
Society should have. You know, his “friends” or whoever sees his posts

Not the government lol
How would his friends prevent him from obtaining a gun?  Are you suggesting they should talk him out of it or that they should report him to government?  If the latter, then isn't your answer really that government shouldn't monitor/investigate at all and instead rely only on citizens to report suspicious behavior?

 

Rich Conway

Footballguy
I don’t know enough about the uvalde shooter to comment.

That said I understand and am accepting of the fact that not every mass murderer will be prevented from obtaining a gun legally and that there are additional preventative measures that could be taken but not worth the associated trade-offs.

I also understand and am accepting of the fact that we provide driving licenses to people that will drink and drive and kill people.  This kills way more people than mass murderers.  I don’t think we should comb peoples social media profiles to see if they have a tendency to party hard and drink heavily as a potential mechanism to not grant a license to drive.  Do you?  And driving isn’t even a protected right.
As I understand it, he had specifically noted on social media that he intended to shoot up a school.

To be clear, I'm not saying your answer is necessarily wrong.  However, I find that far too many people who argue vehemently for/against a particular policy (especially against a policy implemented by "the other team") really don't think through the policy before arriving at their conclusion and whether that conclusion fits with other beliefs they hold.

 

djmich

Footballguy
As I understand it, he had specifically noted on social media that he intended to shoot up a school.

To be clear, I'm not saying your answer is necessarily wrong.  However, I find that far too many people who argue vehemently for/against a particular policy (especially against a policy implemented by "the other team") really don't think through the policy before arriving at their conclusion and whether that conclusion fits with other beliefs they hold.
I totally get the dilemma…and frankly don’t have religion on what the answers are or where the balance is.

If I had proposal in front of me that the words “I will kill people” or some derivative of that would be used to deny a gun license and the government couldnt scope creep the purpose would I vote yes…in that vacuum yes.

Here’s a broader but to me very related question.  People that post stuff like that, let’s say they can’t legally get a gun.  Surely they can find other ways to obtain a gun or another weapon and kill people. What do you do with adults that post this stuff?  If you’re willing to restrict one right based on what might happen…why not others because the problem still exists.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BladeRunner

Footballguy
Some questions.  1. Do you think it's reasonable for government to make some effort to ascertain whether John Doe is a high risk candidate (i.e. likely to go on a rampage) for gun ownership?  2. In your opinion, what would be the most effective methods to do that?  3. Are there any methods you wouldn't find overly invasive or questionable?


1.  Yes.

2.  Criminal background checks for all guns purchases would be an example.  As another example I’d be open to something like no past history of psych evaluations that concluded a potential harm to society…just throwing it out there, not thought through.

3.  See 2


One of the problems is that, in the NY's case, it won't be a trained psychologist making those decisions - it's a biased bureaucrat beholden to the party.  No thanks.

 

Max Power

Footballguy
I support social media monitoring as long as there is a clear line on what will flag a gun purchase.  Hurting animals, talking about shooting up schools, hurting people, overt racist threats... Things like that should be unacceptable.  

What I would not stand for is flagging someone who has gun content and/or makes a subjective post.

 

BladeRunner

Footballguy
I support social media monitoring as long as there is a clear line on what will flag a gun purchase.  Hurting animals, talking about shooting up schools, hurting people, overt racist threats... Things like that should be unacceptable.  

What I would not stand for is flagging someone who has gun content and/or makes a subjective post.


That may work to begin with, but that process always gets corrupted.  It will change in the future to whatever the current party in power needs it to be.  In the case of NY or CA, that party will ALWAYS be Democrats.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Max Power

Footballguy
That may work to begin with, but that process always gets corrupted.  It will change in the future to whatever the current party in power needs it to be.  In the case of NY or CA, that party will ALWAYS be Democrats.  
Absolutely.  They've shown time and time again that when they get an inch they try to take a mile.  This will be no different. 

 

Cowboysfan8

Footballguy
How would his friends prevent him from obtaining a gun?  Are you suggesting they should talk him out of it or that they should report him to government?  If the latter, then isn't your answer really that government shouldn't monitor/investigate at all and instead rely only on citizens to report suspicious behavior?
Yes

 

-fish-

Footballguy
2A supporters cheer SC decision instructing legislatures to re-write existing gun laws.

Legislature re-writes gun laws.

2A supporters:  No, not like that!

 

BladeRunner

Footballguy
2A supporters cheer SC decision instructing legislatures to re-write existing gun laws.

Legislature re-writes gun laws.

2A supporters:  No, not like that!


SC will toss those too.  I mean, did you really think that we thought this would be the end of it?  :doh:

OF COURSE we knew that the Democrats would continue to try illegal end-arounds to the constitution.  It's what they do.    :shrug:

 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
Weren't most of the 2A folks just recently telling us (in the context of "guns aren't the problem") how society should have done a better job of evaluating the Uvalde shooter's social media history to prevent him from obtaining a gun?



Direct Headline: Lawsuits take aim at New York’s new gun-control rules for carry permits

Gov. Kathy Hochul tried to thwart the US Supreme Court with a new law that makes virtually all of New York a gun-free zone and requires applicants for carry permits to give the state information about their social media accounts, according to a federal lawsuit filed Monday....The Northern District of New York filing alleges that Hochul was “unhappy” with last month’s ruling in which the high court struck down a 1913 state law that required permit applicants show “proper cause” for wanting to pack heat....Hochul “called an extraordinary session of the New York State Legislature for the purpose of enacting a new statutory scheme (the CCIA), designed to give the appearance of compliance with [the decision] but in reality thwarting and bypassing the Supreme Court’s decision.”

Instead of “representing a good-faith attempt to bring New York law into compliance with the Second Amendment” and the high court ruling, state lawmakers allegedly doubled down on strict gun control laws, “flouting the people’s right to keep and bear arms.....This Court’s intervention is therefore necessary, to again make it clear to New York that it is not free to thumb its nose at the text of the Second Amendment and the opinions of the Supreme Court, and that the Second Amendment is neither a ‘constitutional orphan’ or a ‘second-class right,'” according to the filing....

It also says that the requirement for applicants to provide lists of their social media accounts for the past three years could limit their free expression, in violation of the First Amendment, out of fear that their postings “may one day give a licensing officer pause in issuing a license.”...The suit was filed by upstate resident Ivan Atonyuk, who’s had a carry permit since 2009 and who immigrated to New York from Ukraine, “not seeking to exchange one totalitarian regime for another,” it says.

Another suit challenging the law was filed Monday in Manhattan federal court, where lawyer Jon Corbett, who’s representing himself, took aim at the social-media provisions, saying they effectively ended the ability for pistol-permit applicants to post online anonymously.....“An applicant who has had an abortion and has used the anonymity of social media to seek comfort is now outed, as is the gay person struggling to come out to their family,” says the suit, in which Hochul is named as the defendant....

By Zach Williams, Ben Feuerherd and Bruce Golding July 11, 2022 8:20pm

https://nypost.com/2022/07/11/lawsuits-take-aim-at-new-yorks-new-gun-control-rules-for-carry-permits/

*******

On Yubo, people can gather in big real-time chatrooms, known as panels, to talk, type messages and share videos — the digital equivalent of a real-world hangout. Ramos, they said, struck up side conversations with them and followed them onto other platforms, including Instagram, where he could send direct messages whenever he wanted.

But over time they saw a darker side, as he posted images of dead cats, texted them strange messages and joked about sexual assault, they said. In a video from a live Yubo chatroom that listeners had recorded and was reviewed by The Post, Ramos could be heard saying, “Everyone in this world deserves to get raped.”

A 16-year-old boy in Austin who said he saw Ramos frequently in Yubo panels, told The Post that Ramos frequently made aggressive, sexual comments to young women on the app and sent him a death threat during one panel in January.

“I witnessed him harass girls and threaten them with sexual assault, like rape and kidnapping,” said the teen. “It was not like a single occurrence. It was frequent.”

He and his friends reported Ramos’s account to Yubo for bullying and other infractions dozens of times. He never heard back, he said, and the account remained active.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said Wednesday that Ramos had also written, “I’m going to shoot my grandmother” and “I’m going to shoot an elementary school” shortly before the attack in messages on Facebook.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/28/uvalde-shooting-gunmen-teen-girls/

*******

Purity test on your part. What happened in Uvalde was Ramos was actively reported for harassment and disturbing behavior and he literally posted on Facebook before the attack. The deeper questions there revolve around Big Social Media being able to immediately track this type of content and notify law enforcement. Ramos literally said he was going to shoot a family member and attack an elementary school.

In the case of NY and Hochul, the purpose of trying to get the social media accounts is clearly designed to drive people away from applying for a gun permit at all.

SCOTUS, across multiple Courts and different Justices, have discussed at length what Hochul is doing here. She's denying Constitutional rights and the delays she's inflicting cause "irreparable injury" to American citizens and all New Yorkers.

If Hochul wants different laws, then Team Blue needs to win a crap load of elections, get their POTUS candidates into office, fill Congress with Blue loyalists, get their SCOTUS candidates on the Court and create the laws she wants.

I'm talking about actual democratic processes at work. As our Founders intended. What Hochul is doing is trying to create the kind of laws she wants for her own agenda in defiance of SCOTUS. That's not democracy. Not even close. That's outright tyranny at work.

I'd rather have Amy Klobuchar running the Oval Office right now. America would be safer for that. But I can't just advocate for tossing Biden out of office without actual democratic processes at work.

Hochul cannot just pick and choose the parts of our laws and country and processes that she likes and discard the rest.

 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
Direct Headline: Hochul’s Circular Firing Squad: Federal Court Rules Against New York’s Gun Law

Jonathan Turley 10/7/22

I previously wrote about the latest New York gun law passed after the Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and how it follows a long line of legally flawed legislative measures in the area.... On Thursday, federal District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby issued a temporary restraining order against a substantial part of the law, including barring the provisions previously discussed as presumptively unconstitutional....

New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul promised such legislation within an hour of the release of Bruen. The Concealed Carry Improvement Act passed 43-20..... it followed the same pattern of past laws in creating an easy target for gun rights advocates.After Bruen was handed down recognizing that limits in some sensitive places could be constitutionally permissible, Hochul went on television to say in a mocking tone that they would just come up with a long list of sensitive places. At the time I remarked that it was a rather foolish statement since that clip will be cited by challengers to show a clear attempt to undermine the ruling with yet another transparent loophole argument.The list would seem to cover most areas outside of the home, including government buildings; any location providing health, behavioral health or chemical dependence care or services; any place of worship or religious observation; libraries; public playgrounds; public parks; zoos; the location of any state funded or licensed programs; educational institutions both in elementary and higher education; any vehicle used for public transportation; all public transit including airports and bus terminals; bars and restaurants; entertainment, gaming and sporting events and venues; polling places; any public sidewalk or public area restricted for a special event; and protests or rallies...

It is hard not to see that listing as an obvious effort to do precisely what Hochul said: to recreate the ban by including virtually every location as a “sensitive area.”

Once again, it is baffling why New York voters continue to enable this type of leadership. New York routinely opts for legislation that offer immediate political benefits while causing long-term precedential damage. It is reckless and cynical, particularly when two justices (Roberts and Kavanaugh) have signaled their willingness to accept reasonable limits. Instead, Gov. Hochul and others have once again assembled the same circular firing squad of new, easily challengeable legislation...

The matter will now go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has proven amiable to limits on the Second Amendment. It has also been reversed in major cases like Bruen. This could repeat that pattern and give the gun rights advocates another great opportunity to expand on Second Amendment protections.

The case is Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 1:22-CV-0986 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York).


https://jonathanturley.org/2022/10/...ederal-court-rules-against-new-yorks-gun-law/




Direct Headline: Shock poll shows Hochul, James in trouble in New York

By Cam Edwards October 06, 2022

It’s the second poll in recent days from Trafalgar Group that finds Republicans running unexpectedly strong races in deep blue states....According to the survey results, Republican challenger Lee Zeldin trails Gov. Kathy Hochul 42-44, with 9-percent of voters still undecided. The news is even worse for Attorney General Letitia James, who trails Republican Michael Henry by a single point, 44-45....

....The survey’s results are not exactly in line with most polling in the state, however. The RealClearPolitics polling average in the NY governor’s race shows Hochul with an average lead of more than 11-points, which points more to a blowout victory for Hochul than a real horserace. Still, Trafalgar has a solid polling reputation, so perhaps they’re picking up on trends that other outfits aren’t seeing.

If Hochul and James really are in electoral peril, there’s no doubt in my mind that their continued hostility towards the right of the people to keep and bear arms is one of the big reasons why. The new gun control laws rammed through the state legislature after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s “may issue” concealed carry laws may be popular in New York City, but the farther away you get from the Big Apple, the more opposition you find. Many county legislatures have passed resolutions condemning the new laws, and some are even talking about banding together to sue the state.....


https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...ws-hochul-james-in-trouble-in-new-york-n63028



*******

"Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied"

I recognize while there are, IMHO, far too many lawyers as regular posters in the FBG forums, there are also many more who are not regularly exposed to the law nor work in the law. In short, if some type of legal redress is not achieved in timely fashion, or is intentionally slow walked or hindered, it is effectively the EXACT same thing as having no real legal remedy at all.

SCOTUS has ruled. If Hochul doesn't like it, that's too bad. She doesn't get to overrule SCOTUS or decide what laws she wants to follow or not on her personal whims.

Hochul is playing games for partisan and election reasons. Doing these stunts gets her into the national daily media cycle in the hopes of energizing the Big Blue base so she can get elected, but the problem is that she and Tish James and Alvin Bragg have also simultaneously enabled widespread crime in the Big Apple. You can't have woke "bail reform", then Defund The Police, then make recruitment for the NYPD a living nightmare, then foster an environment where veteran officers want to resign or retire, and leave your citizens under your ward as prey for criminals, then also disarm those same citizens at the exact same time.

Not only is it completely insane, it's also political suicide.

It's demanding that New Yorkers become victims and keep gaslighting them to vote for you so you can be reelected to ensure they remain victims.
 

tymarsas

Footballguy
Not sure where to put this article, but this thread seems as good as any. I'm pretty sure if everyone could have an honest debate on gun control that we could come up with some decent common sense gun laws that would prevent incidents like this. Awful story.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top