When an article contains the following:
The new measure, containing 21 pages of carefully drafted verbiage, provides for pre-licensing background checks, mental health, social media screening and training in the use of a firearm, all of which will probably pass muster.
But the act also designates much of the state as a “sensitive location” where legally permitted guns will be legally prohibited. Sensitive locations must be “clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.” What makes a sign “clearly and conspicuously identified” will keep lawyers and judges busy for a decade.
You know you are in for a roller coaster ride of twisted logic.
The author is obviously looking at the new bill through the lens of a pre-Bruen decision. There is nothing in the text or tradition of the second amendment to allow for the sort of screening put into this bill. Nothing to allow for training requirements. The only place they have any hope is in the “sensitive locations”, but since they went overboard and made NYC a sensitive place, it is highly unlikely it will survive a judicial review.
He laments that there are so many different sensitive places it will be difficult to move through the city:
The six conservative justices have not thought it through. The court’s decision is virtually impossible to administer. The practical problems are enormous. If I can legally carry a revolver in my pocket and capriciously decide to approach a “sensitive location,” what do I do with the gun before entering?
And, if I can legally keep a gun in my apartment, and legally carry it on the street, how do I legally carry the weapon through the halls and public areas of the building without violating the law? The law says no guns on private property unless the landlord says OK
Finally we get to his real concern, his concern for the police.
And what of the burden on the police? It used to be that an officer, seeing someone with a bulge in his pocket in a high-crime area late at night, could “stop and frisk” the suspect for unlicensed weapons. But how does the cop distinguish between a licensed bulge in the pocket and an unlicensed one? Erased is the requisite “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is being committed.
The author is studiously ignoring the reality of the new law. The new law is not concerned about the burden on the police because their is no burden. If a gun owner manages to get a permission slip to exercise his right of self-defense there is no way to safely navigate through the waters of NYC. Everywhere he turns there is another mark on the map “Here be a felony”.
The law isn’t a burden on the police because it is a slap in the face of the Supreme court and every gun owner in the country. Having been told they must issue permits the state of New York has made it impossible to exercise the right to carry.
Is it any wonder that gun rights organizations are filling lawsuits left and right? How does somebody look at the fact pattern and decide that this is a burden for the police and not citizens?
— The Hill Is New York about to become the Wild West?
Comments
3 responses to “Right Facts, Wrong Conclusion”
The “wild west” comparison they love (drink a sip) is ironic when the West was actually pretty peaceful, and the idea of it of a lawless frontier is almost entirely fiction.
I think it was Halbrook, in “That every man be armed” who compared 19th century crime stats for two working class tows, one in the “wild west” and one in the northeast. I think they were Leadville (CO) and New Bedford (MA).
It turned out the “wild west” town was far safer and more law abiding. The only obvious difference between the two was that in the western town, law abiding citizens habitually went about armed, while in the eastern town they did not.
And of course, quite apart from that, the “we’ll have the Wild West here” trope has been shown, in every instance, to be a delusional fiction. (Or is that a malicious fiction?)
Very little will pass muster. They’ve made every public place in the entire state a gun free zone unless explicitly marked otherwise with a sign. The social media provisions are completely unenforceable and unconstitutional. The training will likely be found illegal as well when the state makes it impossible to complete and/or prohibitively expensive. This wasn’t carefully crafted verbiage, this was compulsive liberal excrement put to paper and signed by a governor who is dumber than a bag of hammers. Sounds like the quoted author isn’t much smarter.