Posted: 24 June 2022 at 2:12am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Jim Burdo wrote:
There are already concealed carry permits in New York. LINK. It has nothing to do with open carry. Rebecca Jansen is wrong as usual. |
|
|
Yes, there are already concealed carry permits in New York.... Which is the whole crux of the Supreme Court ruling.
[As an aside, the link to 'disprove' Rebecca is to 'Moody Redhead' on Twitter, who writes: "WTF are you talking about? There were already concealed carry permits in NY". Can't we come up with more authoritative reference links than some random on Twitter?]
In summary, NY tried to regulate who could carried a conceal gun, applying a rule that to carry it outside the home, a license was required and the successful applicant for such a license would have to establish that proper cause existed for having the gun. This was challenged legally. The challenge made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the challenge.
On these facts I would like to think we agree.
You then opine that this has no bearing on open carry. Here we disagree.
The reason I feel this does have a bearing on open carry is because of the language of the majority opinion, drafted by Justice Thomas. He wrote, "The government must affirmatively prove its firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to bear arms" and that "A State may not prevent law-abiding citizens from publicly carrying handguns because they have not demonstrated a special need for self-defense."
Now this sounds an awful lot to me like a hurdle is being raised for the government when it comes to gun regulation in any regard. His words did not talk specifically about concealed weapons. He talked about a constitutional right to carry a handgun without having to show any need for self-defense.
Maybe he was just sloppy and meant to put in concealed weapons? What do you think?
Edited by Peter Martin on 24 June 2022 at 2:19am
|