https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/pio/New-Gun-Law-FAQ-8-27-22.pdf
If you read this, there is an significant increment in training, media examination for a permit. This has folks all excited and has generated waves of new applications to beat the new law. The 'needs' restriction is gone across the state (the only good thing). Semi auto long guns need permits now.
However, the sensitive locations provisions and the opt in (businesses must post signs allowing carry) destroys practical carry. You can put the gun unloaded in a lock box that would not allow easy access and it has to be unloaded. However, since parking lots seem to be banned, that is a moot point.
Thus to evaluate the SCOTUS decision and case and being blunt.
1. The plaintiffs wanted to get carry permits easily in the counties that used 'reasons' to deny permits. SD wasn't enough. NYC was impossible
2. Many counties were less strict and carry permits took some time but were usually issued.
3. That restriction was eased.
4. The state obviously planned a response and the plaintiffs either did not consider the response or did not care - they wanted their victory on this issue.
5. In most critical incidents (like war for example), you have to consider what will be the consequences of a seeming victory. This wasn't done or was misjudged.
6. The new law abolishes useful carry for the entire state. All those rushing to get permits might as well not. If their goal was to carry as compared to just having a hunting/competition permit, that failed in actual utility.
7. More guns that cannot be carried may be in the homes in NYC. Is that worth eliminating carry?
8. The plaintiffs may have thought that the new laws will be quickly overturned in an appeal. That is an unknown. A judge has the case. Lower courts up to the circuit level are not gun friendly.
9. There was a hope that the Scotus decision would preclude devastating new restrictions. Clarence spoke to that. It is claimed that he was clear but he wasn't. Folks quote him saying that draconian restrictions are not permissible but his statement was not precise and weak. Alito and Kavanaugh babbled some possible restrictions, yet again. Dave Kopel pointed this out.
10. Some claim a great victory because other states have lifted some restrictions. However, some like CA are putting in NY like restrictions. So is the situation better? The returned cases might lead to more gun laws being repealed. However, that still does nothing for destroying carry in NYS.
11. Other anti states will do the same. Permitting semis will spread
12. Getting this undone will take years if ever. A net loss for most of NYS.
There was a failure of planning and thought by the plantiffs and a failure in the actual decision by Clarence (or his clerks). You cannot be vague.
If I am wrong and the lower court that has the case, void the CCIA act and related laws - I will be elated and surprised. I will eat crow over my view. Of course, that would be appealed and the CCIA might stay in force for years until it gets to Scotus - whose views will be unknown esp. on the sensitive locales and private property specific positions.,
If you read this, there is an significant increment in training, media examination for a permit. This has folks all excited and has generated waves of new applications to beat the new law. The 'needs' restriction is gone across the state (the only good thing). Semi auto long guns need permits now.
However, the sensitive locations provisions and the opt in (businesses must post signs allowing carry) destroys practical carry. You can put the gun unloaded in a lock box that would not allow easy access and it has to be unloaded. However, since parking lots seem to be banned, that is a moot point.
Thus to evaluate the SCOTUS decision and case and being blunt.
1. The plaintiffs wanted to get carry permits easily in the counties that used 'reasons' to deny permits. SD wasn't enough. NYC was impossible
2. Many counties were less strict and carry permits took some time but were usually issued.
3. That restriction was eased.
4. The state obviously planned a response and the plaintiffs either did not consider the response or did not care - they wanted their victory on this issue.
5. In most critical incidents (like war for example), you have to consider what will be the consequences of a seeming victory. This wasn't done or was misjudged.
6. The new law abolishes useful carry for the entire state. All those rushing to get permits might as well not. If their goal was to carry as compared to just having a hunting/competition permit, that failed in actual utility.
7. More guns that cannot be carried may be in the homes in NYC. Is that worth eliminating carry?
8. The plaintiffs may have thought that the new laws will be quickly overturned in an appeal. That is an unknown. A judge has the case. Lower courts up to the circuit level are not gun friendly.
9. There was a hope that the Scotus decision would preclude devastating new restrictions. Clarence spoke to that. It is claimed that he was clear but he wasn't. Folks quote him saying that draconian restrictions are not permissible but his statement was not precise and weak. Alito and Kavanaugh babbled some possible restrictions, yet again. Dave Kopel pointed this out.
10. Some claim a great victory because other states have lifted some restrictions. However, some like CA are putting in NY like restrictions. So is the situation better? The returned cases might lead to more gun laws being repealed. However, that still does nothing for destroying carry in NYS.
11. Other anti states will do the same. Permitting semis will spread
12. Getting this undone will take years if ever. A net loss for most of NYS.
There was a failure of planning and thought by the plantiffs and a failure in the actual decision by Clarence (or his clerks). You cannot be vague.
If I am wrong and the lower court that has the case, void the CCIA act and related laws - I will be elated and surprised. I will eat crow over my view. Of course, that would be appealed and the CCIA might stay in force for years until it gets to Scotus - whose views will be unknown esp. on the sensitive locales and private property specific positions.,
