Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(142,420 posts) Thu Oct 24, 2024, 03:12 PM Oct 24

New York State Can Enforce Many Gun Restrictions, US Appeals Court Rules

Source: US News and World Report/Reuters

Oct. 24, 2024, at 11:04 a.m.

NEW YORK (Reuters) -A federal appeals court upheld large portions of an expansive New York state gun control law on Thursday, saying the state can ban people from carrying weapons in "sensitive" locations such as schools, parks, theaters, bars and Times Square.

In a 246-page decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan also let licensing officials prevent people they consider dangerous from using guns in public, by requiring gun applicants to show they have "good moral character."

But the three-judge panel also rejected parts of the 2022 law, including a gun ban on private properties that are normally open to the public, such as gas stations and supermarkets. The panel had ruled the same way in December, but revisited the matter after the U.S. Supreme Court - in a different case - clarified the constitutional protections afforded to gun owners.

"The overall message of this case is that the careful, thoughtful, public safety driven law in New York is consistent with the 2nd Amendment," said David Pucino, legal director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in an interview. Lawyers for gun owners who challenged the law had no immediate comment.

Read more: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-10-24/us-appeals-court-allows-many-new-york-gun-restrictions

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New York State Can Enforce Many Gun Restrictions, US Appeals Court Rules (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Oct 24 OP

Definitely NOT The Wording I'd Use: GB_RN Oct 24 #1

I think the "clarification" came from Roberts BumRushDaShow Oct 24 #2

You're Right. GB_RN Oct 24 #3

Yeah, the bump stock ruling was a punt BumRushDaShow Oct 24 #4

Concur. GB_RN Oct 24 #5

GB_RN

(3,157 posts)

1. Definitely NOT The Wording I'd Use:

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Oct 24, 2024, 03:54 PM

Oct 24

The panel had ruled the same way in December, but revisited the matter after the U.S. Supreme Court - in a different case - clarified the constitutional protections afforded to gun owners.

(Emphasis added.)

There was no clarification, just (In)Justice Clarence “Uncle Slappy (the Clown)” Thomas (Q-Corrupt Clown) making shit up out of whole cloth.

Note: This is not an attack on the OP. This is just me taking issue with the wording by the report’s author.

BumRushDaShow

(142,420 posts)

2. I think the "clarification" came from Roberts

Reply to GB_RN (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 24, 2024, 04:04 PM

Oct 24

and his scolding the lower courts about what the purported intent was for Bruen.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/supreme-court-opinions-john-roberts-balancing-act.html

GB_RN

(3,157 posts)

3. You're Right.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 24, 2024, 04:12 PM

Oct 24

I was thinking about the bump stock case, Garland v Cargill, where Uncle Slappy made a contortionist look absolutely stiff by comparison, when he made all kinds of fucked up arguments to say that what amounts to a machine gun isn’t a machine gun.

BumRushDaShow

(142,420 posts)

4. Yeah, the bump stock ruling was a punt

Reply to GB_RN (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 24, 2024, 05:00 PM

Oct 24

but the "domestic abuser should be able to have GUNZ" surprisingly didn't pass their muster.

GB_RN

(3,157 posts)

5. Concur.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 24, 2024, 06:35 PM

Oct 24

That was a shocker. I suspect that it was one of those occasional bones that Roberts figures he can toss out to make the (non-fascist) public think that he, Uncle Slappy, Scammy, Justice Beerbong and Gore-suck aren’t as extreme as they actually are.

Reply to this discussion