Court rules it is constitutional to require a "good cause" to carry a gun in NY

[rambone]

The New York Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to force New Yorkers to provide a "good cause" to receive a "permit" to exercise their "rights." This is a big setback and a bad precedent.


Schneiderman wins major gun-control case

"It was a really good victory for the public safety in New York." She was pleased that "the proper cause provision has been named constitutional." In response to the idea that this case could go to the Supreme Court, Hilly answered "the Supreme Court was pretty clear in Heller. As [Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia said, '[the Second Amendment] doesn't mean any gun, anywhere, any time.'"

 

[melensdad]

And based on the NY state constitution that makes sense.

If we are all about the libertarian ideal of "state's rights" then it only makes sense to support the court ruling. The court looked at the state constitution, and ruled that the constitution is valid and therefore it must be supported by those folks who support state's rights.

 

[Westside]

my "good cause" is my desire to live is greater than the desire of some DB to harm me.

 

[KLB]

I love this quote: "Seibel went on to elaborate that even if the Second Amendment did guarantee that right, New York State's "proper cause" provision would still be considered constitutional because the law exists to preserve the important government interest of promoting public safety by cutting down crimes committed by concealed handguns." Because we all know criminals will apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon before they do so committing a crime.

 

[Hammer]

That's simple, bring in a bunch of news paper clippings from the new york area of innocent people being shot and tell them I don't want to be like them.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm not surprised. I expect via the 14th amendment this will be overturned as the DC ban was as well.

Right to carry will 'carry' the day... eventually. Assuming it makes it to the USSC before another nominee is made.

Most people don't realize how tenuous the situation is with the USSC and the bozo's both R's and D's have been appointing.

 

[rambone]

And based on the NY state constitution that makes sense.

If we are all about the libertarian ideal of "state's rights" then it only makes sense to support the court ruling. The court looked at the state constitution, and ruled that the constitution is valid and therefore it must be supported by those folks who support state's rights.

I don't think I agree with that. The states by their own consent agreed to the terms of joining the union. They ratified the U.S. Constitution and they should be obligated to uphold it, as well as their own. The lack of mention of the RKBA in the NY constitution should not negate the relevance of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. constitution.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I don't think I agree with that. The states by their own consent agreed to the terms of joining the union. They ratified the U.S. Constitution and they should be obligated to uphold it, as well as their own. The lack of mention of the RKBA in the NY constitution should not negate the relevance of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. constitution.

...depending upon one's interpretation of the 14th Amendment...

 

[Rob377]

According to Ron Paul, none of the Bill of Rights applies to the states anyway, so this is good law for the Paul fans.

Just saying'

 

[CarmelHP]

According to Ron Paul, none of the Bill of Rights applies to the states anyway, so this is good law for the Paul fans.

Just saying'

I think that they're on the 14th Amendment cafeteria plan, take what you like, leave what you don't.

 

[kludge]

And based on the NY state constitution that makes sense.

If we are all about the libertarian ideal of "state's rights" then it only makes sense to support the court ruling. The court looked at the state constitution, and ruled that the constitution is valid and therefore it must be supported by those folks who support state's rights.

If you ignore the supremacy clause. Which they do. New York, that is.

 

[melensdad]

If you ignore the supremacy clause. Which they do. New York, that is.

But doesn't Ron Paul suggest that the states have supremacy?

 

[Bunnykid68]

But doesn't Ron Paul suggest that the states have supremacy?

Does he want State supremacy over the Constitution? I am asking cause I have no idea.

 

[melensdad]

Does he want State supremacy over the Constitution? I am asking cause I have no idea.

Isn't that what "state's rights" is all about!!!

 

[MinuteMan47]

Tyranny is tyranny. Be it state or federal.

 

[A_Tomic]

I believe "states rights" means that what is not given to the Federal Government in the Constitution goes to the states.... 2nd amendment is federal.... meaning all of us.

I also believe that is how Ron Paul sees it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Isn't that what "state's rights" is all about!!!

I am not sure, that is why I am asking. I thought the Bill of Rights(not the mod) was to restrict all government and to protect the peoples God given rights. I, just using my common sense would think the States would have to abide by that also.

 

[LPMan59]

i always thought that the BOR only applies to the Federal government. However they can be incorporated to apply to the states via the constitutional amendment. Due to the recent SC rulings, I would imagine (hope?) that this would be struck down as the they ruled the people have the right to both keep (own) and bear (carry) arms.

beats me though; IANAL. Just avoid libtard states and forget about it.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I just saw an article on Officer.com about how NYPD has anti-aircraft capabilities and over 2000 cameras in Manhattan to "protect" the people. What a shame as I have always wanted to go to Times Square on New Years Eve to watch the ball drop. I have absolutely no reason to go to that Communist Bloc anymore.

 

[kludge]

The way I read it, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (it kinda actually says that). Amendments are part of the constitution. When a state ratifies it or joins the union, it encumbers itself with the supremacy clause. The 14th reiterated that fact and the (racist) courts almost immediately gutted it and invented "selective incorporation" which is why we've had to fight so hard for so long to get the 2nd incorporated against the states.