Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Do you think the decision will make CCL's easier to come by in ruralish areas (such as central new york, where I am) and if so how long will it take to change?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Supreme Court Decision Effects
- Thread starter Brian Pfleuger
- Start date
BurkGlocker
New member
I wouldnt hold my breath, they'll (anti gun) will find something else to try and hold back our freedoms.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
What irritates me is that (at least here) it's all up to the judge. Having a good day, gun friendly, just got a piece...., here's your permit.
Even the way the law is written clearly indicates it is not supposed to be that way, essentially in NY we should be able to get a CCL so long as we have no history of felony, mental illness or order of protection.
Even the way the law is written clearly indicates it is not supposed to be that way, essentially in NY we should be able to get a CCL so long as we have no history of felony, mental illness or order of protection.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Sure, I understand that, but I guess what I'm wondering is if it will make the authorities less likely to deny permits arbitrarily at the risk of being sued.
What irritates me is that (at least here) it's all up to the judge.
Move to SC. We're a "must issue" state!
The ruling does not affect CCW at all. The ruling is about the individual right to OWN handguns and while it says you have the right, it also says you can be forced to apply for a license to exercise the right to have a handgun in your home.Sure, I understand that, but I guess what I'm wondering is if it will make the authorities less likely to deny permits arbitrarily at the risk of being sued.
There is nothing in it that would make anyone fearful of a lawsuit over failing to issue CC permits because there is nothing in the ruling that applies to CC permits.
Kreyzhorse
New member
Do you think the decision will make CCL's easier to come by in ruralish areas (such as central new york, where I am) and if so how long will it take to change?
I don't think you'll see any change. Heller was not a wide sweeping pro-gun decision. In my opinion, it simply set up that gun ownership is an individual right and that guns could be used in the home for self defense. Other than DC, Chicago and San Fran, I really don't see any thing within the pro-gun enviroment changing.
I do look for the antis to try to really push "sensible" guns laws in the wake of the decision. After all, the decision alluded to the fact that regulation of guns falls within the governments rights.
If you haven't read the Supreme Court Brief on the decision do so. Pay close attention to the dissenting opinions. Their opinions are actually frightening.
In fact, Heller might have actually set us up for increased gun laws. People need to read the decision and keep up their guard. We won the battle, but we did not win the war.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Well you're right about the scary part but it's certainly nothing new (in theory), just now it's in writing from the high court.
Personally, I think that it may be more likely that judges will not arbitrarily deny permits when the state law gives a list of qualifications. Unless they change the qualifications it seems to me that the state would be hard pressed to explain why the judge has denied a permit when any given individual meets the qualifications that the state itself has set forth. The SC decision states that the government has the right to regulate but it seem that they would have to abide by those regulations.
Personally, I think that it may be more likely that judges will not arbitrarily deny permits when the state law gives a list of qualifications. Unless they change the qualifications it seems to me that the state would be hard pressed to explain why the judge has denied a permit when any given individual meets the qualifications that the state itself has set forth. The SC decision states that the government has the right to regulate but it seem that they would have to abide by those regulations.
The SC decision states that the government has the right to regulate but it seem that they would have to abide by those regulations.
A local CWP instructor told us he required 100% hits on the firing range qualification for CWP. This was far in excess of the STATE-mandated requirement. He also told us the "head of SLED" would "back him up" on that. The instructor who actually taught us told us that was a bunch of hooey. NO instructor can hold you to a higher requrement than the law states for passing the course.
The most important thind to take away from this year in Court is the fact that the we now have a superior branch of government. In every important case, the decisions made had precious little to do with the Constitution, The Bill of Rights or with the rule of law, but rather with the political views of the judges. We can sit back and high five each other that we didn't lose this one (notice I didn't say that we won it either) but that was by a 5 to 4 vote, along political lines with a real big "if" on the swing vote. That may, in itself, not be new, but the court has now begun to give itself powers that it does not legally posses. Also, since the rule of law now has nothing to do with what the founding fathers intended, it is subject to change over time.
I hope that, with respect to the 2nd ammendment, this opens a discussion that leads to more must issue areas and the overall result is postive. I am, however scared that after more than 200 years, we were fighting over the definition of the word "people".
I hope that, with respect to the 2nd ammendment, this opens a discussion that leads to more must issue areas and the overall result is postive. I am, however scared that after more than 200 years, we were fighting over the definition of the word "people".