🇳🇱
NICE! As much as I hate the right every once in a while they do something good. Apparently now states **must** issue permits to carry a handgun to anyone who requests it unless they have an explicit reason not to (like they have a criminal history)... This makes all states "shall issue" states!
This is great, am really excited to see the #2A being expanded!
https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-guns-decision-second-amendment-new-york-2022-6
@freemo Firstly, this is from last year, it's not new. Secondly, it's based on some bizarre legal theory, creating a legal principle that did not previously exist and does not make sense: specifically, that the state can pass gun control laws only if there is are "historical roots" for the law in question. So it's (again) the court making up the law it wants, rather than the law it's got.
Thirdly though, and most importantly, why is this a good thing? You're a gun nut, I get it, and that's fine - you're a responsible gun owner and all that.* But why does the fact that responsible owners are responsible mean that it's a good thing for everyone to be given a gun for the asking, even if there is no reason to believe they know what they're doing or will be responsible? We don't give cars to people who haven't demonstrated they can drive safely, for the good and sufficient reason that in incompetent hands they're lethal, and cars aren't even designed to be lethal weapons.
*Personally, I don't get why you would have a need to carry a gun in public, and open carry in particular is physically intimidating to others in the same way that walking around with a large and aggressive dog is. So I must say I think it's particularly anti-social. But that's not a safety issue, merely a courtesy one.
@VoxDei "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"... very clearly denying a gun to people without any reason is infringing on ones right to bear arms.
Has nothing to do with if your a gun nut or not, has more to do with if your honest about what the law very clearly says.
@freemo A license requiring you know what you're doing and know how to be responsible in no way infringes on the right to bear arms.
@VoxDei @freemo In a lot of counties – I mean places that this ruling is directed at – this is not remotely an honest description of what was going on. You could be a world-class expert in firearm usage or whatever and not get a CCW in these places. And the problem was not hoops to jump through to prove your expertise: they just didn't issue.
@ech @VoxDei
Exactly... if someone bothered to create a license that made to to fix the other infringments it causes indiretly, then you very well could have, in theory, a license that wont infringe... sadly no one has even attempted to do so..
To do it you'd have to
1) make sure it is one-way only.. that is, impossible for anyone to check if you have gun based on name or SS#, or to see who has or doesnt have a gun in a particular area. You'd have to create system where the **only** way to check if someone is licensed is if the licensee **volunteers** their license number at which point a cop can only **confirm** they have a license and not search for licenses
2) It would have to be illegal for a cop to stop and ask you for your license simply because you display a firearm... otherwise that would be harassment and put people at risk.. much like with a license to carry a cop should only be able to ask for your license if you are under arrest and at reasonable suspicion of having commited a crime (and no carrying a weapon is not an indication of that).
3) All licensing would have to be free and tax paid.
4) All licensing centers would have to be able to license someone **on the spot** at time of purchase immediately and same day
5) anyone who wishes to cancel their license should have the option, if they wish, to purge their data from the system
If you manage to do those issues then you have an infringement free license... without those qualities then asking for a license 100% is a n infringement based ont he clear definition of the word.