First California, Now New York

     Remember what I said about the “may issue” states and their opposition to the right to keep and bear arms?

     Administrative processes can be made so painful and expensive that they deter effectively everyone from exercising their rights.

     California is tightening the screws one way:

     “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.”

     New York will do it another way:

     New York’s Democratic leaders aim to preserve as many restrictions as possible on carrying a handgun in public after the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key portions of the state’s gun-licensing law.

     State and New York City officials are zeroing in on specifying “sensitive locations” where concealed weapons could be forbidden, including a concept that would essentially extend those zones to the entire metropolis. Other options under consideration include adding new conditions to get a handgun permit, such as requiring weapons training.

     Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, vowed to call the Democrat-led Legislature back for a special session to pass new rules.

     If “sensitive locations” is interpreted broadly, the term might encompass the whole state. If the required “weapons training” is made sufficiently expensive and exhausting – easily done, as the state could certify a single organization as qualified to perform it, and could mandate that it include an arbitrary list of requirement – it could deter permit seekers from even applying. Neither tactic is beyond the imagination of the anti-gun Left.

     Yet we speak here of a Constitutionally recognized and protected right. What other right is hemmed in in such a fashion? For what other right do we have to satisfy faceless persons about our personal capabilities and qualities?

     Stay tuned!


Skip to comment form

    • SteveF on June 30, 2022 at 4:22 PM

    In a turn of events which should shock no one…

    1. Well, yes, it’s “dog bites man” stuff, but it’s important to be aware of the political bad faith involved.

  1. If NY had actually bothered to read the opinion, they would see that the court already addressed that. Here is a quote, directly from the decision:

    That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded…

    • Miles on July 1, 2022 at 2:01 AM

    Justice Thomas specifically addressed the subjects of excessively strict permit requirements and ‘sensitive areas’ in Bruen. Now it just may be me, but I think he’s almost daring these states to go and try something.

    This court is not the court of just a few years ago.

Comments have been disabled.