Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 101 to 109 of 109

Thread: We Win!!!

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Quakertown, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    5,878
    Rep Power
    21474856

    Default Re: We Win!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by middlefinger View Post
    believe it or not she used to have an A rating from the NRA
    https://www.wnypapers.com/news/artic...le-association
    So did John Murtha and Pat Toomey.
    Accuse your enemy of what you are doing as you are doing it to create confusion -Karl Marx

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mohnton, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    7,194
    Rep Power
    21474854

    Default Re: We Win!!!

    Now they will pack the court. Elections haven*t been secured. The red wave is for good bye. And it*s all been done in your face style. You won*t have the cash to buy the gas to go protest. You won*t have the food to give the strength to lift a finger. The chair disintegrated while the wall fell in because nobody noticed the roof was leaking.
    The Gun is the Badge of a Free Man

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    york, Pennsylvania
    (York County)
    Posts
    727
    Rep Power
    21474848

    Default Re: We Win!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Defender View Post
    Here's some of the ideas already being floated in NY by Hochel an her fellow reprobates as reported in the UK Daily Mail.

    "State and New York City officials are zeroing in on specifying 'sensitive locations' where concealed weapons could be forbidden, including a concept that would essentially extend those zones to the entire metropolis".

    "Other options under consideration include adding new conditions to get a handgun permit, such as requiring weapons training".

    "New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, also a Democrat, said state lawmakers should ban people from carrying handguns in any place containing more than 10,000 people per square mile, or anywhere within 1,000 feet of mass transit systems, hospitals, parks, government buildings, schools, churches, cemeteries, banks, theaters bars, libraries, homeless shelters and courts"

    "Some business groups are also concerned. Andrew Rigie of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, a restaurant and nightclub owners' group, said small businesses should be able to decide what is allowed in their establishments".
    Oh this will surely have criminals quaking n their boots - how will they ever make a dishonest living with all those restrictions?

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Among the Trees, Pennsylvania
    (Lehigh County)
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    6224478

    Default Re: We Win!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SevenMilePete View Post
    What did we win? We still need to get a permit. We still can't carry in DC, Maryland, NJ, NY. I don't see what "We Won".
    I am not a lawyer, but I think "we won" SCOTUS precedent that: ('fixes' Heller) "bear arms" means to carry and extends to in public, "the People" in 2A means you and me, not just "the Militia" (or hunters, or everyone but no, one individual) the 14th Amendment applies this to all states ('fixes' states' regulating unilaterally and via Commerce Clause), if states' want their method of carry to be concealed, then they must apply objective regulations to all who apply, and applies Strict Scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment (which with infringements and time) should reduce most of the punitive legislation that is already being discussed to combat this ruling in the seven (formerly) "Shall Issue" states.

    Additionally, within the pages are writings that reasonably and truthfully excoriate many of the arguments of gun control proponents... and if 1% of law-abiding residents of NY, CA, NJ, MA, MD, Connecticut & HI apply for carry permits before their governments can change the rules, possibly 865,000-plus new concealed carriers.

    National Reciprocity or Constitutional Carry and the like are, maybe, far down the road, but I feel like this ruling is essential to moving the 2A back in the direction it was always meant to be.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Berks County, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    3,312
    Rep Power
    21474851

    Default Re: We Win!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by ray h View Post
    Unless perhaps you are a resident of PA and travel into other states like MD, NY or NJ who have been "may issue" states.
    Quote Originally Posted by JaySmith View Post
    It doesn't automatically grant reciprocity though from what I read. Even in PA, MD residents can't have a handgun in the car unless they are going to/from a range.
    Quote Originally Posted by raxar View Post
    Its pretty simple, there are a million things they'll do. Just make the price to apply for a permit be something like $5,000 (non-refundable), require state approved liability insurance, require a 1 year "waiting period" for new permits, only allow you to carry a smart gun with a limited amount of spare ammo, and have the office that issues the permits have incredibly limited hours (previously issued permits exempted of course)
    Quote Originally Posted by Defender View Post
    Here's some of the ideas already being floated in NY by Hochel an her fellow reprobates as reported in the UK Daily Mail.

    "State and New York City officials are zeroing in on specifying 'sensitive locations' where concealed weapons could be forbidden, including a concept that would essentially extend those zones to the entire metropolis".

    "Other options under consideration include adding new conditions to get a handgun permit, such as requiring weapons training".

    "New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, also a Democrat, said state lawmakers should ban people from carrying handguns in any place containing more than 10,000 people per square mile, or anywhere within 1,000 feet of mass transit systems, hospitals, parks, government buildings, schools, churches, cemeteries, banks, theaters bars, libraries, homeless shelters and courts"

    "Some business groups are also concerned. Andrew Rigie of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, a restaurant and nightclub owners' group, said small businesses should be able to decide what is allowed in their establishments".
    Which is basically the entire physical area of NYC.

    And, wait, cemeteries?

  6. #106
    PickingPA Guest

    Default Re: We Win!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by esh21167 View Post
    Which is basically the entire physical area of NYC.

    And, wait, cemeteries?
    Democrats don’t want conservatives carrying guns and being all intimidating where the D voter base resides

    Big cities & cemeteries

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dover, Pennsylvania
    (York County)
    Posts
    2,352
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: We Win!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by esh21167 View Post
    Which is basically the entire physical area of NYC.

    And, wait, cemeteries?
    Can*t kill their voters!
    Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    somewhere, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    623
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: We Win!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by RTF92.5 View Post
    I am not a lawyer, but I think "we won" SCOTUS precedent that: [...] applies Strict Scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment [...]
    Not quite. Strict scrutiny is different from "text, informed by history."

    This may seem like a minor point, but it is actually the most significant win from the entire ruling and the foundation of a huge number of new lawsuits to try to overturn unconstitutional gun control that has previously been (incorrectly) litigated.

    This ruling affirms that "text, informed by history" is the standard of review demanded by the 2nd Amendment. Text, informed by history means (essentially) that if a law or regulation relates to the 2nd Amendment, the state must prove that the law or regulation is analogous to a law or regulation that was in place at the time when the 2nd Amendment (or possibly the 14th amendment, when dealing with state laws) was adopted.

    Strict scrutiny on the other hand is a type of means-end scrutiny a.k.a. balancing test which is similar to intermediate scrutiny. Strict scrutiny would allow the government to claim that some government objective is justification for upholding gun control laws as long as they make the gun control regulation narrowly tailored to try to have the least undue impact on the right while still trying to achieve their goal. This was tossed out explicitly as invalid.

    Now, if a regulation relates to the 2nd Amendment, the government has the burden of proving that it is meaningfully analogous to a regulation that was in place and accepted as constitutional at the time the 2A or 14th Amendment was ratified. That is a much stronger protection than even strict scrutiny.

    We all really should read the opinion. Thomas and Alito did a great job.

    A few relevant excerpts:

    Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "unqualified command."
    If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of "intermediate scrutiny" often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable "and, elsewhere, appropriate" it is not deference that the Constitution demands here.

    The Second Amendment "is the very product of an interest balancing by the people" and it "surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms" for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is this balance "struck by the traditions of the American people" that demands our unqualified deference.
    This does not mean that courts may engage in independent means-end scrutiny under the guise of an analogical inquiry. Again, the Second Amendment is the "product of an interest balancing by the people," not the evolving product of federal judges. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635 (emphasis altered). Analogical reasoning requires judges to apply faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances, and contrary to the dissent's assertion, there is nothing "[i]roni[c]" about that undertaking. Post, at 30. It is not an invitation to revise that balance through means-end scrutiny.
    The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not "a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees." McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

    New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    It is so ordered.
    Justice Barrett:
    A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second. See, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250*251 (1833) (Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal Government). Nonetheless, we have made clear that individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and made applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment have the same scope as against the Federal Government. And we have generally assumed that the scope of the protection applicable to the Federal Government and States is pegged to the public understanding of the right when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791.
    I am not a lawyer.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Among the Trees, Pennsylvania
    (Lehigh County)
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    6224478

    Default Re: We Win!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by buckengr View Post
    Not quite. Strict scrutiny is different from "text, informed by history." [...]
    Thank you for the clarification and fixing my error, plus the excellent snippets from the ruling. I got as far as downloading it to my desktop and do look forward to reading it through.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •