frontlines

NY Bar leader criticizes revised red flag law  from the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle

ALBANY – Weeks after lawmakers embraced expansions to a law that allows firearms to be seized from persons deemed to be dangerous, the revamped 'red flag' statute is flawed with 'significant deficiencies ' including potential threats to due process rights, according to the New York State Bar Association’s leader.

Sherry Levin Wallach, president of the lawyers’ group, expressed concern that judges are required to make rulings regarding an individual’s mental state in the absence of a requirement for a psychiatric evaluation. She also pointed out the New York Red Flag law forces individuals to represent themselves when they lack funds to hire a lawyer or don’t understand the importance of being represented by an attorney.

'We are all horrified by the tragic and repeated mass shootings across our state and nation, and support policy changes that might prevent the next tragedy from occurring,' Wallach said in an essay published by the USA Today Network. 'But expanding a broken statute like New York’s Red Flag Law without making much-needed improvements is not the answer.'

Wallach’s commentary caught the attention of the National Rifle Association, which in a blog post Monday called her critique 'refreshing'

The N.R.A. says it shares the view that dangerous people should not have access to firearms, but believes the New York statute has fundamental due process protections while creating risks to violations of the rights of innocent people.

Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and an N.R.A. board member, said he agreed with Wallach’s essay on the state framework for initiating emergency protection orders authorizing law enforcement to seize weapons from an individual.

'It’s what we’ve been saying since Day One,' said King, whose group last month won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which found New York’s restrictions for concealed carry permits infringed on the constitutional rights of applicants for pistol permits.

New York has had a red flag law since 2019. But the issue got renewed attention following the May 14 racist massacre of 10 African Americans at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo. Those killings were allegedly carried out by an 18-year-old Broome County man whose erratic behavior in high school one year earlier drew State Police attention, though he still managed to acquire a Bushmaster XM-15 rifle in the weeks before the massacre at a shop in Endicott.

The new amendments added to the Red Flag law last month require police and prosecutors to file extreme risk petitions when they have credible information that individuals are about to harm themselves or others. If police secure such a judicial order, they can seize guns or prevent the individuals named in the orders from acquiring firearms.

In the nine weeks since the Buffalo massacre, State Police said their investigators have filed 143 Red Flag petitions, representing a significant increase in the pace of those interventions.

Timothy Dymond, president of the union representing State Police detectives, said the governor’s office and the attorney general’s office 'have left us hanging' by not providing legal representation to those investigators when they go to court with the extreme risk removal petitions.

'When they get temporary removal from the judge, they have a hearing scheduled within three days, and our people are going to these hearings without representation,' Dymond sasid. 'We’re oftentimes taking on a skilled defense attorney that represents the respondents. So it’s just a losing formula. The state of New York has attorneys representing its interests in traffic tickets. So the fact they have an investigator without an attorney representing the state’s interests for these cases is just baffling.'

Thomas Mungeer, president of the New York State Troopers Police Benevolent Association, said the Red Flag requirements have become 'an unfunded mandate' for already strained State Police. 'We need the resources in order to complete the mission,' Mungeer said.

The package of new gun laws included an expansion of those who may file extreme risk protection order petitions to include health care practitioners who have examined an individual within the last six months.

Hochul’s office, asked about the Bar Association head’s critique of New York’s approach to Red Flag interventions, pointed to remarks Hochul made three weeks ago.

Hochul noted then the state had raised the purchase age for semi-automatic rifles while increasing reliance on the Red Flag laws. 'And I thank the State Police for being so aggressive in their approach in making sure that we protect citizens,' Hochul added.

An ardent supporter of gun owner rights, Assemblyman Robert Smullen, R-Fulton County, said the Red Flag law, in his view, remains flawed, while much of the package of new gun laws has the effect of hindering the ability of law-abiding people to exercise their right to have firearms to protect themselves.

'They decided to pass an onerous law that applies to all legal, law-abiding citizens and prevents them from being able to defend themselves,' he said. 'On so many levels, it’s unconstitutional.'

Smullen said one solution to a gun debate that is often geographical in nature is to have the S.A.F.E. Act -- the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement legislation of 2013 -- apply only in New York City.

He noted it took police 25 minutes to respond to a home invasion crime at his rural house last December. 'That’s why people in my area own guns,' he said. 'It’s a different scenario than living in Manhattan.'

Why We Can't Have Nice Things: 'Good Samaritan' Who Saved Indiana Mall Goers Is Denounced as No Hero  By Alex Parker | Jul 18, 2022 AP Photo/Michael Conroy

What makes someone a hero? How about a Good Samaritan? Evidently, such questions are contentious.

And a Sunday incident has some insisting a brave bystander shouldn’t be celebrated.

At the Greenwood Park Mall in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area, a man opened fire. As reported by Deseret News, 20-year-old Johnathan Sapirman got off 24 rifle rounds.

Tragically, three were murdered: Victor Gomez, 30; and couple Rosa Rivera de Pineda, 37, and Pedro Pineda, 56. Two more were injured: a 20-year-old female shot in the leg; and a 12-year minorly wounded by a deflected bullet.

After entering the mall, Sapirman headed straight to the bathroom and was there for over an hour before exiting the bathroom and opening fire.

“The most puzzling piece…was the amount of time that he was in the bathroom,” [Chief James Ison] said. “We believe he was getting ready.”

But the man’s plans were thwarted because more than bad guys carry guns. Elisjsha Dicken, 22, stopped the mass shooter’s spree.

Footage…showed that Dicken shot 10 rounds from his handgun, while motioning for citizens at the mall to exit behind him.

Chief James has praised Elisjsha’s intervention:

“Many more people would have died last night if a responsible, armed citizen hadn’t been present…”

On Sunday evening, the chief compared Elisjsha to a biblical character. He did so again Monday:

“The shooter was confronted by our Good Samaritan. … The Good Samaritan was armed with a pistol and engaged the shooter as he stood outside the restroom area firing into the food court. [Elisjsha] fired several rounds, striking the suspect. The suspect attempted to retreat back into the restroom [but] fell to the ground after being shot.”

Does that sound like a hero to you? It doesn’t to a Bloomington traffic anchor. Murrow Award-winning journalist Justin Kollar was flabbergasted by the chief’s framing. He expressed his dismay in a tweet:

“The term ‘Good Samaritan’ came from a Bible passage of a man from Samaria who stopped on the side of the road to help a man… I cannot believe we live in a world where the term can equally apply to someone *killing* someone… my God.”

And he was none too impressed with Elisjsha packing heat.

“It’s against the @simonmalls code of conduct for anyone to carry a weapon inside the mall. However, Greenwood Police are thankful the…man was.”

Some online were in agreement. One user offered, “What you have is two gunmen — one of whom obeyed the law for a little longer than the mass shooter.”

More remarks:

·       “[A]sk yourself if you really want your mall experience to be like the wild…west.”

·       “Why did he bring a gun shopping, in a specified gun-free zone? Hmm, not so good by definition. What if he was there to shoot people?”

·       “I am horrified to see that term used in this context.”

So goes America’s divide over guns. For many advocates, if a firearm is used to do evil, it’s apparently the fault of the weapon. But if a gun is used to stop the act, that implement earns no points. Nor does the person who rightfully employed it.

Presently, a perpetrator may be more embraced than their victim (Language Warning):

As for the issue of a Good Samaritan, the biblical act was extolled because it saved a life.

Did Elisjsha do the same, many times over? You be the judge:

·       The shooter was armed with a Sig Sauer 400M .556-caliber rifle.

·       He had a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 .556 on reserve in the restroom.

·       A Glock 33 .357 pistol was on his person.

·       He was armed with over 100 rounds.

·       He’d been frequently practicing at a range for the past two years.

·       He had resigned from his warehouse job in May.

·       Police were told by family they believe he’d received a notice of eviction.

That sounds like a man who came to kill the world.

Thanks to Elisjsha Dicken — no matter what he’s called — that mission was swiftly and permanently scrapped.

-ALEX

Hochul’s New Gun Law Has Impact On Houses of Worship

On July 1, 2022, the state of New York enacted a new gun control law. The July 2022 Gun Control Law was passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, which held that New York’s “concealed carry” law violated the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the law was passed on the same day it was introduced, allowing no meaningful opportunity for public input.

The July 2022 Gun Control Law contains provisions that relate to churches and other houses of worship. Specifically, the law lists several “sensitive locations” where New Yorkers will not be allowed to carry concealed weapons; thosesensitive locations include “any place of worship or religious observation,” schools, “nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps.” Under the July 2022 Gun Control Law, only certain classes of individuals (including, for example, law enforcement officers, active-duty military personnel, and persons acting as licensed and employed security guards) will be allowed to carry firearms at sensitive locations; anyone else carrying a firearm at a sensitive location shall be guilty of a felony. In essence, the state has made it unlawful for houses of worship to have armed congregants serve as members of their security teams unless those congregants are active or retired law enforcement officers. Churches would be permitted to hire professional security, but that could prove cost prohibitive for many houses of worship.

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms opposes the July 2022 Gun Control Law. Churches should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not congregants should be allowed to carry in church. Instead, state government has taken that decision out of their hands.

Statement Concerning New York’s new Firearms Licensing Laws

July 6, 2022 — Once again the New York State Legislature has seen fit to pass sweeping new criminal justice laws that affect the rights of millions of New York citizens, and which impose burdensome new duties on local government officials, without any consultation with the people who will be responsible for carrying out the provisions of those new laws.  This has become a habit with the Legislature and has resulted in other criminal justice disasters such as New York’s so-called Bail Reform Law.

Some action by the Legislature was necessary to fill the firearms licensing vacuum created when the Supreme Court struck down New York’s unconstitutional restrictions on our citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.  But it did not need to be thoughtless, reactionary action, just to make a political statement.

The new firearms law language first saw the light of day on a Friday morning and was signed into law Friday afternoon.  A parliamentary ruse was used to circumvent the requirement in our State Constitution that Legislators — and the public — must have three days to study and discuss proposed legislation before it can be taken up for a vote.  The Legislature’s leadership claimed, and the Governor agreed, that it was a “necessity” to pass the Bill immediately, without waiting the Constitutionally required three days, even though the law would not take effect for two full months.  Consequently, law enforcement agencies and the courts, which bear most of the responsibility for implementing the new licensing laws, were deprived of any opportunity to point out to Legislators the burdensome, costly, and unworkable nature of many of the new laws’ provisions.  And, of course, our citizens, whose rights are once again being circumscribed, probably again in unconstitutional ways, had no opportunity to communicate their concerns to their legislative representatives.

We want to be clear: The Sheriffs of New York do strongly support reasonable licensing laws that aim to assure that firearms do not get into the wrong hands.  We do not support punitive licensing requirements that aim only to restrain and punish law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.  If we had been consulted before passage of these laws, we could have helped the Legislators discern the difference between those two things, and the result would have been better, more workable licensing provisions that respect the rights of our law-abiding citizens and punish the lawbreakers.

'Briefly' . . .  The Recent SCOTUS Decision Explained  Ammoland Inc. Posted on June 29, 2022 by Dean Weingarten

Supreme Court Upholds Gun Rights Outside of the Home, Let’s Break It Down

The opinion by Justice Thomas is relatively simple. The Constitution must be interpreted as what it meant to the people who ratified it in 1791.

It is so ordered!

The dissent starts on page 84. The dissent by Breyer Starts with a false use of the English language:
This opinion should go far in restoring Second Amendment rights.  However, Progressive judges are persistent and inventive in finding ways to justify the positions they wish to take.

The Supreme Court opinion on the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was released on June 22, 2022. It is a 6 to 3 opinion, which upholds the Second Amendment as applying outside the home and rebukes Circuit Courts for creating an unnecessarily complicated two step process in applying Second Amendment protection to statutes. The opinion is 135 pages long.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justice Alito, Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts, and Justice Barrett in concurring opinions. Justice Alito and Barrett concur in full. Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts simply concur.

Looking at history can aid in the understanding, but what was meant at the time of ratification is key. In addition, the Second Amendment became applicable to state governments with the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, so what was meant by the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of ratification is also important.

Justice Thomas cites Caetano v. Massachusetts as one way the Court has adopted the Second Amendment to modern realities.

Thomas clarifies all parties agree the Second Amendment applies outside the home. The respondents, who try to defend the New York “may issue” law, attempt to render the Second Amendment meaningless, by giving state authorities the power to decide who the Second Amendment applies, on a case-by-case basis.

Quotes from the opinion show Thomas correctly points out Second Amendment rights apply to ordinary, law-abiding adults. From Page 3 :

It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects.

and

Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.

On page 4, Thomas explains the requirement for states to show their law is Constitutional.

The burden then falls on respondents to show that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

This is important because it sets the standard for states which are attempting to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. They have the burden of showing a widespread historical precedent for their proposed law.  The precedent has to be greater than what existed for the Sullivan law.

On page 11 Thomas mentions, specifically, six states which fail the test. According to the decision, six states require some special need beyond that of ordinary citizens for self defense. Those states are:

California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland. The District of Columbia is mentioned, with the caveat the law there has been enjoined by the lower court for several years.  The laws in those states, by being mentioned, appear to this correspondent, to have been effectively struck down.

On page 14, Justice Thomas goes on to strike down the ridiculously complicated “two-step” framework which has become common to interpret the Second Amendment in several Circuit courts.

In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

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.

On page 59, Justice  Thomas recounts of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, to protect the freed slaves and to ensure their right to arms.

On page 64, Thomas states late 19th-century regulation should bear little weight compared to earlier evidence.

As we suggested in Heller, however, late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.

On page 66, Justice Thomas dismisses the Kansas court understanding of the Second Amendment in 1901 as clearly erroneous:

For example, the Kansas Supreme Court uphelda complete ban on public carry enacted by the city of Salinain 1901 based on the rationale that the Second Amendment protects only “the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law.” Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 232, 83 P. 619, 620 (1905). That was clearly erroneous.

On page 68, Justice Thomas explains the limitations on the carry of arms are few and not broadly applied.

Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace and other government officials. Apart from a few late-19th-century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense.

Continuing on page 69, Justice Thomas explains the Second Amendment is due all the same respect as the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.

The Second Amendment is not a Second Class Constitutional Right. It deserves the same respect as the First Amendment, or the Sixth Amendment. 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.

Finally, Justice Thomas strikes down the New York law as unconstitutional.

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.

Justice Alito writes a concurring opinion, starting on page 75.

I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.

On page 77, he explains the thrust of the dissent. His explanation is similar to what this writer has written, many times

Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dis-sent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit. That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not re-arguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28.

Heller correctly recognized that the Second Amendment codifies the right of ordinary law-abiding Americans to protect themselves from lethal violence by possessing and, if necessary, using a gun. In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the frontiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection.

Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.

On page 79, Kavanaugh joins with Roberts in concurring. They do not say they concur “in full”. They list the many ways the Second Amendment may still be regulated. It is disappointing, but their concurrence does not carry as much weight as does Thomas’ opinion.

On page 83, Barret concurs in full, and warns against using Reconstruction Era history in interpreting the Second Amendment. She notes the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.

“In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms.”

The basis for nearly all “gun control” legislation is the transference of motive and volition from people to an inanimate object. The correct English usage is: Americans were killed with firearms, not by firearms.

Justice Breyer goes on to claim the Constitution does not place certain things outside of government power to do. He complains about the majority opinion thus, on Page 85:

It refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests maybe. The Constitution contains no such limitation, and neither do our precedents.

Justice Breyer is mistaken. One of the clear purposes of the Constitution is to place certain things outside of government power. A core philosophical building block of Progressive thought is limits on governmental power are bad. This is not the philosophy the Constitution was based upon.

Breyer simply contends the majorities interpretation of historical law is wrong. He supplies the minorities’ interpretation.

It is difficult to see how even the Ninth Circuit can uphold the Hawaii licensing scheme in Young v. Hawaii, or the bans on magazines over 10 rounds or bans on so-called “assault weapons” in California, when those items have already been ruled to be covered by the Second Amendment.

This opinion does not end the fight for restoring Second Amendment rights. It moves us along the path toward full restoration.

Full text of the Supreme Court's decision on the NYSRPA vs Bruen case (Pdf)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law, making it easier for Americans to carry handguns  John Fritze, USA TODAY

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said the New York law "prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms."

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated a New York law that requires state residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun, a decision that could make it easier for millions of Americans to arm themselves in public as the nation is reeling from a string of mass shootings.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority. 

The case was among the most closely watched this term on a docket full of culture war issues such as abortion, religious freedom and climate change. The decision had the potential to shift the landscape on Second Amendment rights at a time when Americans remain divided over access to guns.

"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," Thomas wrote in an opinion joined by five other conservative justices.

The decision landed weeks after an 18-year-old gunman, armed with an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle, fatally shot 19 children and two teachers at a school in Texas. Another 18-year-old has been charged in the May 14 killing of 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. Four others were killed June 1 in a shooting at an Oklahoma medical facility.

The shootings prompted a response from the other two branches of government. A bipartisan group of senators this week revealed the text of a sweeping gun reform package that, if passed, could end decades of partisan gridlock and inaction on the issue. 

In a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal justices, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer started by writing that 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms in 2020 and that gun violence has surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents.

"Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds," Breyer wrote. "The court today severely burdens states’ efforts to do so."

More than a decade ago, the high court ruled that Americans have an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess guns in their homes settling a debate over whether the Constitution guaranteed that right only for individuals or militias. But the court left unanswered whether the same right exists beyond a home's front door.  

At issue is a New York law that requires residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun – in other words, a need for a permit greater than the general public. Two upstate New York residents, joined by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, sued when a county licensing official denied them the carry privileges they sought.

The court's decision was celebrated by gun rights groups.

"Today’s ruling is a watershed win for good men and women all across America and is the result of a decades-long fight the NRA has led," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home."

Gun control groups, on the other hand, asserted it would increase violence.

"Today’s ruling is out of step with the bipartisan majority in Congress that is on the verge of passing significant gun safety legislation, and out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans who support gun safety measures," said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. "Let’s be clear: the Supreme Court got this decision wrong, choosing to put our communities in even greater danger with gun violence on the rise across the country."

During the course of a two-hour oral argument in November, it seemed clear a majority favored striking down New York's law. The real question in the case is the scope of the court's ruling and how many similar gun regulations it will affect across the nation. 

At least six other Democratic-led states – including California, Maryland and New Jersey – have licensing regimes similar to New York's. Together, those states represent about a quarter of the nation's population.

The justices wrestled with the limits on the right to carry a gun in public, and whether those limits should be more pronounced in densely populated places, such as New York City. They peppered the plaintiffs with hypotheticals about whether New York could ban handguns on the New York City subway or in Yankee Stadium. What about on college campuses or at bars?

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that other states, including those with large cities, have more permissive gun regulations without major consequences. But the court's liberal justices pushed back on that assertion, arguing that the city of Chicago is case in point for how more guns can lead to spiraling crime rates. 

"I mean, most people think that Chicago is, like, the world's worst city with respect to gun violence," Associate Justice Elena Kagan said at the time. "Chicago doesn't think that, but everybody else thinks it about Chicago."

Much was made of the court's decision last year to hear the case, in part because the justices had turned away other Second Amendment appeals for years and also because they seemed to pump the brakes on culture war issues more generally. Since then, the 6-3 conservative court has agreed to revisit abortion, affirmative action policies in college admissions and the extent to which states may consider race when they draw political boundaries, such as congressional districts. 

Argument:Supreme Court skeptical of law that limits carrying handguns in public

History:A 700-year-old law may inform Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision

President Joe Biden's administration, which supported New York in the suit, said at least six other states have similar laws. A federal district court in New York dismissed the challenge to the New York permitting scheme in 2018, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision.

An easy refresher on the Constitution and 2^nd Amendment

5 minutes and 18 seconds video.

Gun Control for Dummies - It's Common Sense - YouTube

Here is a list of gun control bills which were passed in New York State during the 2022 legislative session:

List of gun control bills which passed in 2022.

• A-1023A/S-4970A, Requires the creation and imposition of restrictive commercial practices and stringent recordkeeping and reporting to prevent gun and ammunition sales to individuals with a criminal record.
• A-3998/S-687, Clarifies the definition of imitation weapon.
• A-7926A/S-4116A, Requires semiautomatic pistols manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in this state to be capable of microstamping ammunition.
• A-8102A/S-6363A, Requires the court to order the search for and immediate seizure of certain firearms when a defendant willfully refuses to surrender such firearms.
• A-8735/S-7760, Requires the Division of Criminal Justice Services to publish quarterly reports providing information related to firearms, rifles and shotguns used in the commission of crimes in the state of New York.
• A-8736/S-7796, Amends the definition of a “disguised gun” to include any firearms designed and intended to appear to be a toy gun.
• A-8741/S-7736, Amends the “Scott J. Beigel Unfinished Receiver Act” relating to unserialized frames or receivers.
• A-8786/S-7705, Criminalizes the sale of ghost guns; requires any person licensed as a gunsmith or a dealer in firearms to register with the Division of Criminal Justice Services any unserialized firearm, rifle or shotgun, finished frame or receiver, or unfinished frame or receiver.
• A-8846/S-7716, Relates to the Firearm Violence Research Institute; makes technical changes to the institute’s procedures, goals and activities.
• A-10428A/S-9229A, Relates to the definition of large capacity ammunition feeding device for purposes of the offense of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree; and repeals section 265.36 of the penal law.
• A-10497/S-9407B, Relates to the unlawful purchase and the unlawful sale or delivery of a body vest.
• A-10502/S-9113A, Authorizes certain health care providers to file an application for an Extreme Risk Protection Order against a person examined by such health care provider in certain circumstances.
• A-10503/S-9458, Relates to the purchase or taking possession of a semiautomatic rifle; requires a license to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle; establishes the crimes of criminal purchase of a semiautomatic rifle and criminal sale of a semiautomatic rifle; requires recertification of licenses to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle every five years.
• A-10504/S-9456, Relates to defining firearm; provides that the term firearm shall also include any other weapon that is not otherwise defined containing any component that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate any fire control component that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by action of explosive

How The Buffalo Mass Shooter Got Exactly What He Wanted   by Colion Noir

Right now, America is being trolled by an 18 year old psychopath and he has a front row seat to the show.

Everything this guy did was designed to get media attention and drive the biggest divide possible by placating to every talking point the anti-gun far left has.

He left an 180 page manifesto, that’s a book.

He even wrote it in question and answer form like he was being interviewed and he made it a point to answer every question you’d think to ask someone who just slaughtered people in cold blood and hit every single possible racist talking point, and then says all his radicalization happened online during COVID.

He explains why he chose the weapons he used using every single anti-gun buzz word used by the anti-gun lobby. Hell it sounded like they wrote it for him.

Then he literally scribbles every racist word or phrase he could think of on the guns he used and then to top it all off, this walking human fart of a lunatic live streamed the entire massacre.

He packaged together an online mass shooting starter kit, gave it to the media and said make me famous and make me some more mass shooters and the media said “Ok”. 

On May 13, 2022 nobody knew who the hell this kid was, but by May 14th, he was the most famous person in the world and by May 15th,  we knew every thought and desire he had because they were combing through his 180 page written self interview like it was some long lost text from the communist manifesto.

He created a snuff film and it got passed around like it was the the missing Ray J and Kim Kardashian sex tape.

It’s not like the footage was caught on surveillance cameras, he live streamed it.

Now I can’t go on the internet without seeing videos of him in court, articles about what we know about the shooter, who was his mama, and what did he eat that day.

Then to make themselves feel better about sensationalizing a clout chasing psychopath, the media sprinkles a couple videos about the people who were actually killed.

We gave him exactly what he wanted, the same thing I’ve been saying for 9 years now:

He wanted to solidify himself as the architect of how to become more famous than ever by committing mass shootings and it worked!

This guy was nothing more than a copycat.

His 180 page manifesto was mostly plagiarized from another mass shooters manifesto and video of a mass shooting that he only knew about because, of course, the media sensationalized and made that guy famous.

He literally says that the previous shooters live stream is what started everything you see here https://www.jpost.com/international/article-706733.

He wanted infamy he just used his new found racism to justify his actions. This was about him and making himself famous.

He saw a playbook and copied it. Nothing he did was original, nothing he said, was original.

He simply wanted to amass the highest body count, using the most infamous gun so that the media would talk about it, making him infamous for eternity because now anytime there’s a mass shooting his name will come up and he decided not to kill himself because he realized it would be better to live to see and experience the fame instead of dying.

Now he’ll end up in prison and be taken in and protected by the other racist gangs in prison who hate black people and praise him for what he did.

Congratulations to Americas Mainstream you did it again.

You made another sociopathic low life famous for killing a bunch of people and inspired future shooters in the process.

Especially now considering we are living at the height of clout chasing, where people eat laundry detergent for views.

This is no different, except the clout chaser is an evil psychopath who was chasing clout with a gun in his hands.

I promise you, if he thought no one would talk about him, mention his name or watch his disgusting little live snuff stream, he wouldn’t have done this because his motivation was attention and we just gave it to him in spades and then wonder why we keep having these copy cat mass shootings.

And of course, right on cue here comes the anti-gun lobby and their anti-gun politician exploiting this shooting to push gun control.

Here’s the irony the shooter said he chose to: “carry it out in New York due to its strict open carry gun laws, which would make it harder for someone to stop him.” https://www.newsweek.com/buffalo-shooter-saw-new-yorks-gun-laws-his-advantage-1706982.

And the irony gets even worse, right now there is a case in the supreme court named New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen where the supreme court is deciding if New York’s denial of applications for concealed carry licenses for self defense violates the second amendment.

Anyone want to take a guess how the mayor of New York feels about a potential ruling that would make it easier for New York citizens to carry guns for their safety?

Especially after a mass shooter just shot up a grocery store in New York because he knew the likely hood of someone carrying a gun was low and if someone was, they’d likely be limited in their capacity to deal with him because of New York’s gun-laws.

And I quote: “We Should Be Very Afraid, ” Mayor Eric Adams Said. In a densely populated community like New York, this ruling could have a major impact on us. https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-new-york-guns-concealed-carry/11857751/

This is not rocket science, shooters like these are cowards looking for easy targets. 

That’s why he didn’t run down the block trying to shoot street dudes in that area, he knows the street dudes in the hood don’t care about New York’s gun laws, they all have guns with as many rounds as they want and they wouldn’t call the police.

They’d leave him out there in the street to rot and instead of watching a livestream of a coward shooting unarmed innocent people, we’d be watching the livestream death of loser.

Body armor and an AR-15 doesn’t make you immortal.

When you have other people shooting back at you, it changes everything, you go from “I’m to kill everyone in this place” to “oh shit I’m being shot at” and that shifts the focus away from killing unarmed innocent people to the people shooting at you giving the unarmed people time to escape.

That security guard may have lost his life, but because the shooter had to deal with the security guard shooting at him in the first place, there’s no telling how many lives he saved just by having a gun.

Long story short, gun control create victims not safety.