The New York Times is in fits over the HR822:
This trashing of state and local prerogatives is not only unwise but unnecessary. In its wrongheaded 2008 decision recognizing an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep guns in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court still left room for reasonable gun limits, including restrictions on toting concealed weapons.
What New York City has are not restrictions on concealed weapons. What New York City has amounts to a prohibition for carrying a firearm at all, except for the rich and well connected. This should not pass any constitutional standard for a fundamental right. Since New York does not choose to prohibit concealed carry, but rather to restrict it in an arbitrary and capricious manner, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be forced to recognize other licenses from other states.
I’d also note that the Court, in Heller, did not endorse prohibitions on concealed carry. It offered that as an example of restrictions that have been upheld, as an example of ways the right has been regulated. That’s a far cry from the Courts endorsing New York City, Chicago’s, or D.C.’s draconian prohibitions.
Isn’t it a prohibition on owning a firearm, period? I was thinking you couldn’t even have a loaded gun in your home without a permit there.
That’s correct. You can’t own a handgun in NYC without a premises license, which are technically issued on a shall-issue basis, but practically speaking are not. They can unilaterally determine that you’re not a suitable person, and can deny you. My understanding is that they’ll often deny for trivial and stupid reasons. It’s very difficult to legally possess a handgun in New York, and even if you do, it’s virtually impossible to carry it, even unloaded. You can get 2 authorizations to transport a firearm a year from your premises, so I hope you don’t enjoy target shooting, or want to practice some.
You know that you’re over the target when you’re taking flak.
That said, I’m not convinced this is a good idea. I understand the argument, and I’d appreciate not having to disarm just by crossing state lines.
Even so, there remain a number of traps for the CC holder as he crosses from state to state, just as there are now. And I’m not at all convinced I want federal intervention at all in this area.
Realistically, unless it is tacked on to some “must pass” piece of legislation, it’s unlikely to pass, or have the votes to override a veto.
Be careful what you wish for.
GMC70,
Aside from 50 state permitless carry, what do you think an acceptable solution would be?
And this isn’t commerce clause overreaching type federal intervention. It’s 14th Amendment we’ll bring the federal government down on your asses for violating the rights of the people like we did in the 50’s for the civil rights movement type federal intervention. Which is exactly what the government is supposed to do, protect the rights of the people.
How does the NYT feel about a license to practice journalism, that is only valid within the state that issued it?
Quoting the article: “…38 states prohibit people convicted of certain violent crimes like assault or sex crimes from carrying concealed guns…” So, if 49 states have some form of CHL, and only 38 prohibit “violent” felons from having CHLs….the NYT is saying 11 states allow felons not only to own guns, but to carry them. I have a hunch I know why the article didn’t list any.
Ah… the criminal will carry the gun regardless of what the law says… If the criminal obeyed the law, the criminal would not … violate the law. Try, try to follow logic-please.
Sage, my thoughts exactly. As they don’t list the states (tho some Joyce business mentions Florida) I wonder if this is even true.
Still a Carry permit just says I can legally carry my gun. If I’m a convicted felon, I can’t have any gun in ANY fashion, no matter what paper I have in my pockets.
So the point is moot. And given that somebody will be shot in NYC by a convicted felon that BOTH had a felony conviction, and did NOT have an NYC carry permit, we all see the futility of their pearl clutching.
The banners aren’t against guns. They are against the common people having guns. Shall issue should be the rule in every state and every state should have a pre-emption law.
“Philadelphia’s police commissioner Charles Ramsey… pointed to the bill’s failure to establish a national database or other enforcement mechanism to allow officers to verify the validity of an unfamiliar out-of-state concealed-carry permit shown by a person with a loaded gun.”
Yeah, just like the Federal database[s] of auto registrations and driver licenses. Oh, wait…
…no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive emoluments or privileges from the community..
Virginia Declaration of Rights,1776
Not even rich ones.
The NYT is clear to point out the right to keep guns ‘in the home’. That was an underlying fact in Heller but it is not any limit to the individual 2nd Amendment right. Nearly the entire history recounted in the Heller decision concerned militia and hunting, neither of which are really viable from your home. Particularly the militia part, which I suspect is what the Times really doesn’t like about the 2nd Amendment.
New York’s arguments against out of state carry permits being valid in their state are ridiculous. Just because states have shall-issue policy does not mean that I can just run around shooting people. It is often those same states that take gun crime more seriously. Really, where is a person who murders another with a handgun (or any weapon) more likely to get the death penalty, NY or Virginia? Take the case of the sniper. Maryland couldn’t even bring themselves to push for the death penalty. It was never an option. This is why the sniper was tried first in VA.
The NYT would strip 2A from the Constitution if it could. The paper’s editors honestly believe that rank and file Americans are too stupid to be trusted with guns.
signed
an H&K USP, Colt .45, and Model 27 owner with a concealed carry permit in CO
“… failure to establish a national database or other enforcement mechanism to allow officers to verify the validity of an unfamiliar out-of-state concealed-carry permit…”
When working for a national restaurant firm, which served alcoholic beverages at many of its locations, we were issued a booklet that had examples of each state’s drivers licenses and/or I.D. cards so that we could ascertain the validity of any DL that might be presented to us.
Yeah, that would be impossible for the criminal justice system to match, way beyond their level of expertise.
“This trashing of state and local prerogatives is not only unwise but unnecessary. In its wrongheaded 1954 decision recognizing a black child’s Fourteenth Amendment right to attend her neighborhood school alongside white children, the Supreme Court still left room for reasonable racial limits, including restrictions on riding in the front of a city bus…”
[I apologize for the double submission, but I realized that one important word was missing..]
“This trashing of state and local prerogatives is not only unwise but unnecessary. In its wrongheaded 1954 decision recognizing a black child’s Fourteenth Amendment right to attend her neighborhood school alongside white children, the Supreme Court still left room for reasonable racial limits, including restrictions on riding in the front of a Montgomery city bus…”
“How does the NYT feel about a license to practice journalism, that is only valid within the state that issued it?”
Irrelevant in the NY Times’ case, since what they practice is not journalism.
The point I made with the quote from the V D of R was that any license to exercise a right creates an aristocracy. It matters not whether this is a right to bear arms, do hair, or practice medicine.
Ideally, yes. But because we license other rights in certain context, I think licenses to carry are quite likely to be upheld.