The SCOTUS ruling on concealed carry is not unexpected

[PTWB]

It doesn’t mean states must issue concealed carry licenses to anyone for any reason.

SCOTUS ruled that states are free to condition licenses based on objective requirements, whereas some states were previously using subjective requirements. The ruling holds that if an applicant meets all the objective requirements that have been set by the state, the state cannot deny them their license.

Nothing is stopping New York, California, and the half a dozen other states that are impacted by this ruling from making a long list of objective requirements in order to obtain a permit to carry.

[roamer65]

1. Correct.

That ideology will be in the new laws they pass.

Which effectively will be telling SCOTUS to go fuck itself.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

2. SCOTUS decisions often have nuance that gets ignored in the rush to complain about them

Both the gun ruling and the Miranda ruling suck, but are not as apocalyptic as being made out to be.

[Historic NY]

10. Miranda ruling is used in other countries.

I was watching the should about smuggling in airports and was surprised that the Columbian police gave almost word for word the same warning given here. So perhaps it's one ruling that had greater implications or codifications.

British always use 'caution'


[link:https://sgp.fas.org/eprint/miranda.pdf|]

[AZSkiffyGeek]

13. But the ruling related to suing the police for not Miranda-ing

And it was on a case that the defendant was found innocent before he sued.
Perhaps it is incremental and further erosions are coming, it certainly could be given this court, but the ruling wasn't for someone found guilty on information obtained without providing Miranda.

[Historic NY]

15. True but it seem to been a sput to push it elsewhere.

[onecaliberal]

3. The decision said the requirements were an undue burden in NewYork. So that's not a given.

[PTWB]

5. That's because they were subjective.

Someone had to prove they had a special need to have a license, which was not defined by the legislature, and was at the discretion of the officer in charge of reviewing and approving / denying the application.

If New York decides that concealed carry holders must take gun safety annual classes, for example, that would be an objective requirement.

[onecaliberal]

7. This is not the best argument. IMO.

Church- can’t ban guns at church, there are church shootings.
Schools- can’t ban guns at schools, there are school shootings
Stores- can ban guns at stores, there are shootings in stores.
I’m sure you see the theme. They want guns everywhere.

[PTWB]

14. I'm not sure what you're saying.

Part of the ruling confirmed that states CAN restrict people from carrying guns in sensitive areas, such as schools, government buildings, etc.

The ruling confirmed this is appropriate and is settled case law.

[onecaliberal]

18. I hear you, I'm just telling you this is what they'll argue and drag out every one of these issues

In court.

[David__77]

4. I don't like that sheriffs control this in CA.

I support requiring criteria be publicly known, intuitive, and specific.

[Voltaire2]

6. SCOTUS can EABOD.

[onecaliberal]

19. 👆🏻👆🏻

[BeyondGeography]

8. I suspect NYS will tax and regulate the fuck out of guns and gun owners

A case of be careful what you wish for in the making.

[Scrivener7]

11. I hope so.

[sarisataka]

9. Shhh....

Don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant or two.

Could you imagine, to use the extremely imperfect analogy, the reaction if a person took driving classes, passes the tests, filled out all of the forms for a driver's license then is told "You live in a city with public transportation. We won't give you a license unless you can prove you have a special need to drive your car "

[Scrivener7]

12. Sure. Because who can tell the difference between a bus and a gun?

[sarisataka]

17. As I indicated it is an imperfect analogy

Regardless which end it is viewed from. Do you recall however the lady who killed two people in separate incidents with her car in less than a month. I believe if convicted she faces 6 years; which would the potential sentence be if she shot to death two random people in a month?

As others have indicated, NY and other states can set stringent objective requirements to get a license. Training, insurance, background checks... as long as they are not impossible to achieve they would be allowed.

[brush]

16. There's the rub though. Nothing stopping states from trimming their...

requirements either.

[PTWB]

21. Many states don't have any requirements at all to carry a gun.

As long as it is being carried by someone who is not a prohibited possessor.

[brush]

22. Yeah, this just means more guns in a nation awash in them.

[Native]

20. Thank you for clarifying this!

[Sympthsical]

23. The Court basically thought New York was doing an end-run around Heller

And this was their "Nice try!" response.

[PTWB]

24. I'm curious to see what new requirements New York decides on

This ruling really seems to open the door wide for any number of requirements as long as they are objective and not subjective.

I expect to see a laundry list of requirements that licensees must do, and that the requirements will be so burdensome that few people will actually have the time or money to satisfy them.

This will likely be back in front of SCOTUS in a few years.