Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure about that. I don't see anything prohibiting states from requiring that people visiting or even transiting their states apply for their state license. I don't think this mandates reciprocity.
I wouldn't mind if it did...right now I'm planning a road trip with my son and grandson, and I'm having to plan it through states that grant reciprocity with Texas.
I can't see that happening, inasmuch as the Bill of Rights has not before been imposed on private businesses and private property. There is not, for instance, freedom of speech on private property. If you don't think you're safe without a gun in Half-Price Bookstore, then don't shop there.
I don't know the particulars.
I live in Tennesse. I do not reside in NY state. I don't see how NY state has the authority to grant a handgun license to a person who is a non-resident and lives out of states. That is why reciprocity exists.
It is identical to the way NY state cannot require me to obtain a NY driver's licenses while driving through the state. They simply recognize my Tennesse driver's license.
I think this is how SCOTUS will rule when lawsuits eventually get to them based on NY state not reciprocating. At some point a CCW reciprocal lawsuit is going to come before SCOTUS and they are going to rule, based on this decision that clarifies a right to self-defense, that NY state must reciprocate in some manner and not deny visitors the right to self-defense via conceal carry.
Just MHO.
Your claim that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private property is intriguing. So I can require you not to practice freedom of religion on private property? I can tell a Muslim person he can't bring a Koran into my business?
Or am I twisting your words or misunderstanding what you are saying, because I honestly don't get it. I mean, I know companies have policies and are not like the government, but I did not think they could outright violate your First Amendment rights.
Obviously you have no right to Freedom of Assembly on private property, so I can see where you might have a good point . It is complicated.
I live in Tennesse. I do not reside in NY state. I don't see how NY state has the authority to grant a handgun license to a person who is a non-resident and lives out of states. That is why reciprocity exists.
It is identical to the way NY state cannot require me to obtain a NY driver's licenses while driving through the state. They simply recognize my Tennesse driver's license.
I think this is how SCOTUS will rule when lawsuits eventually get to them based on NY state not reciprocating. At some point a CCW reciprocal lawsuit is going to come before SCOTUS and they are going to rule, based on this decision that clarifies a right to self-defense, that NY state must reciprocate in some manner and not deny visitors the right to self-defense via conceal carry.
Just MHO.
Your claim that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private property is intriguing. So I can require you not to practice freedom of religion on private property? I can tell a Muslim person he can't bring a Koran into my business?
Or am I twisting your words or misunderstanding what you are saying, because I honestly don't get it. I mean, I know companies have policies and are not like the government, but I did not think they could outright violate your First Amendment rights.
Obviously you have no right to Freedom of Assembly on private property, so I can see where you might have a good point . It is complicated.
On the bolded, there are laws that prohibit discrimination by businesses based on religion
There will be no ruling by a Federal court that NY has to grant visitors to the state reciprocity. I don't see a Constitutional basis for requiring that. Some states will issue a carry permit to non-residents, Utah, Arizona, and Florida come to mind.
NY chooses, through an agreement with other states, to not require that you get a NY license to transit the state. NY could, in theory, require that you stop at the state line and take a test to get a non-resident license. However, the states agreed years ago that doing so was not a good idea, and agreed to recognize drivers licenses from other states. But, that has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling today, which merely tells NY that they have to change how they issue carry permits. That's it. Don't read more into this than is there.
On the bolded, there are laws that prohibit discrimination by businesses based on religion
There will be no ruling by a Federal court that NY has to grant visitors to the state reciprocity. I don't see a Constitutional basis for requiring that. Some states will issue a carry permit to non-residents, Utah, Arizona, and Florida come to mind.
NY chooses, through an agreement with other states, to not require that you get a NY license to transit the state. NY could, in theory, require that you stop at the state line and take a test to get a non-resident license. However, the states agreed years ago that doing so was not a good idea, and agreed to recognize drivers licenses from other states. But, that has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling today, which merely tells NY that they have to change how they issue carry permits. That's it. Don't read more into this than is there.
I live in Tennesse. I do not reside in NY state. I don't see how NY state has the authority to grant a handgun license to a person who is a non-resident and lives out of states. That is why reciprocity exists.
It is identical to the way NY state cannot require me to obtain a NY driver's licenses while driving through the state. They simply recognize my Tennesse driver's license.
They certainly can require permits of visitors that they require of residents. They are part of the driver's license compact because they want their citizens to be able to drive in other states. They might not feel the same way about gun carry...they may not want or care if their citizens have gun carry permission in other states.
Quote:
Your claim that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private property is intriguing. So I can require you not to practice freedom of religion on private property? I can tell a Muslim person he can't bring a Koran into my business?
You damned betcha. He just can't prevent that Muslim himself from entering his place of business, inasmuch as Islam does not require Muslims to always have a Koran on their persons.
I bet NYC going to require to see their psychologists for the mental health evaluation.
Psych: "You ever got angry before?"
Applicant: "yeah..."
Psych: "Anger issues... Rejected!"
That's not what I said. I said that until Heller, and later in McDonald, there had been no SCOTUS ruling that held states were covered by the 2nd Amendment, unlike, say the 5th, or the 4th, or the 1st. There were rulings on those many decades ago, after the 14th Amendment was ratified, and SCOTUS came up with the concept of "incorporation"
In 1833, SCOTUS held in Barron v Baltimore that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. That changed after the Civil War, especially after Gitlow v New York in 1925, where SCOTUS held that the 1st Amendment applied to states.
GCA 68 only applied to firearms that traveled in interstate commerce. It required serial numbers on firearms, prohibited direct mail order, and created the FFL. GCVA 68 is irrelevant to this discussion.
That makes sense and I see you are correct about that. My bad.
One, I could see leaving state laws against using a gun in a commission of a crime. But any laws about law abiding citizens owning, purchasing, or carrying a gun or ammunition should be preempted. Also laws regulating or banning gun related businesses should be strictly controlled as they do not end up becoming constructive bans on civilian gun ownership/use. Only federal law should be able to designate what places can be consider protected areas where civilians can't carry guns, and these would only be allowed where the sites have airport style barrier security. Finally, the states would not be allowed to impose legal liability requirements on gun owners and people in the gun business.
Of course, this is pie in the sky at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin
A lot of gun laws are good, especially laws against criminals using a gun in the commission of a crime. Those are GOOD laws and allow judges to give longer sentences to repeat violent criminals and such. I would not want to see the baby thrown out with the bath water here.
You're VASTLY overreading this. That would take another case going all the way to the Supremes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin
This ruling should do wonders for CCW reciprocity. The ruling basically requires all states to allow conceal carry. With states like New York and California eventually having to comply, it means that somebody from Tulsa will eventually be able to drive through California or New York or Washington D.C. with a concealed firearm, and not be terrified about getting thrown in jail and having their weapon confiscated if they are stopped and ticketed by a highway patrol or state trooper for going 5 mph over the speed limit.
This ruling should make CCW reciprocity universal everywhere it is not expressly prohibited.
Of major interest now is, what about those areas that are expressly prohibitted.
With this SCOTUS ruling codifying an existing right to self-defense and protecting the right to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense, I think we will see many more lawsuits now against prohibited places.
I think a lot of government owned property like parks and universities just lost the ability to prohibit conceal weapons on that property. While this ruling recognizes the power of governments to place reasonable restrictions on conceal carry, the clear wording of the opinion being you have a right to self-defense, a lot of people could sue arguing that their need is just as much in a park or on campus, as downtown. Even libraries and post offices.
I think dominoes are going to fall with this ruling. I think a lot of places where carrying concealed is currently prohibited, are going to have to allow people to carry concealed.
Private businesses are completely different. Such as private colleges and retail stores. SCOTUS tends not to trample the sanctity of private enterprise but now that they have ruled a clear right to self-defense, again people wil be able to sue to require the local grocer to allow CCW on their private property.
This is going to get very interesting very quickly. This ruling has massive implications.
Massive win for America and the American people. Just massive.
One, I could see leaving state laws against using a gun in a commission of a crime. But any laws about law abiding citizens owning, purchasing, or carrying a gun or ammunition should be preempted. Also laws regulating or banning gun related businesses should be strictly controlled as they do not end up becoming constructive bans on civilian gun ownership/use. Only federal law should be able to designate what places can be consider protected areas where civilians can't carry guns, and these would only be allowed where the sites have airport style barrier security. Finally, the states would not be allowed to impose legal liability requirements on gun owners and people in the gun business.
Of course, this is pie in the sky at this point.
You don't think private businesses should be able to prevent carry of firearms on their premises? Are you saying that your right to carry a firearm over rides someone elses property rights? I support carry of firearms, but I also support the right of property owners to control what happens on their property.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
