NY gun licenses to require social media checks, character references, safety course

[Chris]

NY gun licenses to require social media checks, character references, safety course
Move is almost sure to draw more legal challenges from gun rights advocates; no firearms allowed at ‘sensitive places’ including houses of worship, schools, Times Square
By MARINA VILLENEUVE
2 July 2022

ALBANY, New York (AP) — New York lawmakers approved a sweeping overhaul Friday of the state’s handgun licensing rules, seeking to preserve some limits on firearms after the Supreme Court ruled that most people have a right to carry a handgun for personal protection. The measure, signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul after passing both chambers by wide margins, is almost sure to draw more legal challenges from gun rights advocates who say the state is still putting too many restrictions on who can get guns and where they can carry them.

Hochul, a Democrat, called the Democrat-controlled Legislature back to Albany to work on the law after last week’s high-court ruling overturning the state’s longstanding licensing restrictions. Backers said the law, which takes effect September 1, strikes the right balance between complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling and keeping weapons out of the hands of people likely to use them recklessly or with criminal intent.

more.............. https://www.timesofisrael.com/ny-gu...ia-checks-character-references-safety-course/

 

[Footsteps]

There have been honorably discharged veterans in New York City who have undergone psychological evaluations and miles of paperwork and finally had to give up their attempts to own a handgun. The paper war will continue but during the process it would be nice if crimes committed with a gun resulted in confiscation from the criminal, and SEVERE, LENGTHY, and NON NEGOTIABLE PRISON time. If the useless screwballs in charge don’t start to do their jobs, Paul Kerseys (Death Wish) will arise. Just sayin’.

 

[NewWine2020]

NY gun licenses to require social media checks, character references, safety course
Move is almost sure to draw more legal challenges from gun rights advocates; no firearms allowed at ‘sensitive places’ including houses of worship, schools, Times Square
By MARINA VILLENEUVE
2 July 2022

ALBANY, New York (AP) — New York lawmakers approved a sweeping overhaul Friday of the state’s handgun licensing rules, seeking to preserve some limits on firearms after the Supreme Court ruled that most people have a right to carry a handgun for personal protection. The measure, signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul after passing both chambers by wide margins, is almost sure to draw more legal challenges from gun rights advocates who say the state is still putting too many restrictions on who can get guns and where they can carry them.

Hochul, a Democrat, called the Democrat-controlled Legislature back to Albany to work on the law after last week’s high-court ruling overturning the state’s longstanding licensing restrictions. Backers said the law, which takes effect September 1, strikes the right balance between complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling and keeping weapons out of the hands of people likely to use them recklessly or with criminal intent.

more.............. https://www.timesofisrael.com/ny-gu...ia-checks-character-references-safety-course/

So, the beginnings of a social media based social Credit score system, huh? Neat! (not).

 

[HisGloryIsPrecious]

Another reason not to be on social media. CHochul has got to go.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

The scariest part is the "character references"
It gives TPTB an excuse to "investigate" the character references (4th Amendment issues)
It gives TPTB information about whom one associates with (1st Amendment issue)
It gives TPTB an excuse to deny one's rights based on something someone else said or did, whether or not it was related to being a character reference or not (1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and 4th Amendment issues)
Etc.

This will disproportionately and adversely affect poor people because of economic bias in the criminal justice system accruing to those with lesser ability to afford private representation vs. overworked public defenders for any past issues.

This will also disproportionately and adversely affect new residents and unpopular people because of difficulty obtaining "acceptable" character references.

I can see a whole new business popping up: Character References R Us
Actually, a whole industry of professional "character references"

And a whole bunch of new opportunities for extortion

This whole thing stinx and is a whole lot of "infringement"

 

[JoyJoyJoy]

Not allowed in *Sensitive* places....churches and schools...just where armed citizens are needed.

How many gang members in NY have guns, do you reckon??? And are not afraid to use them. What a load of hooey. And the citizens of NY keep voting these people in.

@Footsteps I agree 100% with your post.

 

[DanLMP]

Next the SCOTUS will need to decide if this new NY law follows the letter and spirit of their recent ruling. If NY's new law remains in place with no SCOTUS objections or law suits then expect other states to pass similar laws.

For information, Sotomayor is in charge of the Second Circuit; Connecticut, New York and Vermont. I can't imaging her ruling against the NY law so it's going to probably take another law suit and a lot of more months before the SCOTUS can knock this law down.

Then NY will just come up with another bad law.

They will nickel-and-dime the 2nd until they eviscerated it without actually eliminating it.

 

[Carl]

When I was being investigated for my security clearance for the Army Service branch I was going in the FBI investigated for about a month. Mom was kept busy explaining that I had done nothing wrong and what the investigation was about. That was 1962.

 

[DWB]

As a gun owner for more than 50 years I find it totally irresponsible for States to allow citizens to carry firearms without any training whatsoever. In my State (Tennessee) any moron who can legally own a gun, which is basically anyone over 18 with no felony convictions, to carry concealed.

When I got my permit around 2007, I had to go to an 8-hour training course which included time at a firing range, and FBI background check which cost $50. I don't think this is unreasonable for a carry permit. You still can have all the guns you want, but to carry concealed should have some training. I learned a lot at the course, especially the legal ramifications for pulling the trigger, when it is acceptable to use your weapon, and areas where weapons are not allowed. People, many who are indeed morons, need this training.

It used to be a cell phone was the "must have" status symbol item, now it's a gun.

 

[Lastcall]

These new rules will be appealed and hopefully discarded, but its NY, so time will tell.

 

[Lastcall]

As a gun owner for more than 50 years I find it totally irresponsible for States to allow citizens to carry firearms without any training whatsoever. In my State (Tennessee) any moron who can legally own a gun, which is basically anyone over 18 with no felony convictions, to carry concealed.

When I got my permit around 2007, I had to go to an 8-hour training course which included time at a firing range, and FBI background check which cost $50. I don't think this is unreasonable for a carry permit. You still can have all the guns you want, but to carry concealed should have some training. I learned a lot at the course, especially the legal ramifications for pulling the trigger, when it is acceptable to use your weapon, and areas where weapons are not allowed. People, many who are indeed morons, need this training.

It used to be a cell phone was the "must have" status symbol item, now it's a gun.

Agree. It was the same process in NC when I had my conceal carry license.

Here in Oregon, its a 4 hour class, with no range firing, you dont even bring your weapon to the class. Oregon, despite its liberal leanings is a mostly gun friendly state, but not smart in their CCL training.

The when its legal to shoot and not legal to shoot scenarios we discussed in the NC training was extremely helpful. Many have no idea when its lawful to use your weapon.

 

[depserv]

Well we don't want people who commit thoughtcrime bearing arms; we want our big brother to protect us, and the thought criminal is dangerous. Thoughtcrime of course is defined as open disagreement with liberalism, the official state religion. The most dangerous of all thoughtcrime is right wing extremism, which is the kind of thoughtcrime Trump supporters and others called patriot commit. These must be disarmed for public safety. Christians too, or anyone else who openly challenges official dogma on things like homosexuality and feminism.

I assume the high court will throw out this nonsense but I am not certain that it will. I do not like the idea (never used before as far as I can tell) of history and tradition being the criteria used to determine the Constitutionality of any of these edicts. Based on those criteria the Court could say that the government keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people is legal, and the state gets to decide what is a dangerous person.

There is some history of this in American law. If I remember my history right for example after the Civil war and freeing of the slaves southern states enacted laws called black codes; these laws applied only to the former slaves. One of these was that former slaves could not bear arms. This was important to the southern power structure for their safety, since the former slaves were being harassed, beaten, and killed by gangs of racist Democrats like the Ku Klux Klan; armed black people were a danger to the Democrats who controlled state and local governments.

This was one of the reasons for the 14th Amendment. Before it was ratified the rights guaranteed in the Constitution only limited federal government power; after it was ratified those limits were extended to state and local governments. I hope the Court will take that history into consideration in establishing some kind of criteria for how states get to determine who gets to bear arms.

New York State doing this kind of thing is a harbinger of how the red flag scam will be used by corrupt state and local governments.

As far as our caring big brother requiring training and testing before allowing its subjects to bear arms, it seems like a good idea, until you take a couple of things into consideration:

1, So far over a dozen states are Constitutional carry, which means no permit is required to carry a concealed weapon (which means training and testing are not required). Some of them have been Constitutional carry for quite a few years (since 2010 in my state of Arizona for example). If there was any problem with Constitutional carry, you can be sure that the smiling liberals on TV would make sure we all know it, and it would not be spreading like it is. This makes any permitting requirement arbitrary, based on empirical evidence, no matter how important the permit requirement might appear in theory.

and 2, If history tells us anything, it is that legislative bodies and bureaucrats will abuse any power they get; these people like having power over what they see as their subjects, and arms are a very clear form of power; just look at how discretionary licensing has been used. The National Socialists in Germany at one point issued orders to disarm "Jews and enemies of the state," and they did it supposedly for public safety. The liberal cult today, which controls much of our government, is made up of the same kind of people. This is why we have limits on government power in the first place.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

Driver's Ed is about half a school term. Gun safety, etc. class, including range time, should be the other half term

I'd much rather the schools spent money on this than on books like Heather Has Two Mommys, teaching Kindergartners how to put condoms on bananas, and new signage for the rest rooms

Even though I can carry under a Federal Statute, I still got my State cc here because of annual range requirement and potential for not being able to get to the range. I went to the class and it was good to learn the differences and similarities between Missouri and Minnesota, and going to the range is always good, anyway.

 

[mattfivefour]

As a gun owner for more than 50 years I find it totally irresponsible for States to allow citizens to carry firearms without any training whatsoever. In my State (Tennessee) any moron who can legally own a gun, which is basically anyone over 18 with no felony convictions, to carry concealed.

When I got my permit around 2007, I had to go to an 8-hour training course which included time at a firing range, and FBI background check which cost $50. I don't think this is unreasonable for a carry permit. You still can have all the guns you want, but to carry concealed should have some training. I learned a lot at the course, especially the legal ramifications for pulling the trigger, when it is acceptable to use your weapon, and areas where weapons are not allowed. People, many who are indeed morons, need this training.

It used to be a cell phone was the "must have" status symbol item, now it's a gun.

I agree with you completely. I just completed (successfully, praise God) the 16 hour Illinois concealed carry course on July 3rd and discovered a lot that I thought I knew but now know I didn't. We had a number of experienced gun owners and former military people taking it, too; and they felt the same way. I truly believe every gun owner should take an NRA course, whether they have to or not and whether they intend to concealed carry or not. I am so glad I did.

 

[madcat]

I agree with you completely. I just completed (successfully, praise God) the 16 hour Illinois concealed carry course on July 3rd and discovered a lot that I thought I knew but now know I didn't. We had a number of experienced gun owners and former military people taking it, too; and they felt the same way. I truly believe every gun owner should take an NRA course, whether they have to or not and whether they intend to concealed carry or not. I am so glad I did.

Like DWB, I am also in TN and went through the same classes, written exam, and range test for concealed carry. But at least in our county, the sheriff’s depts. offer some good free classes several times a year, for beginners as well as further training for those already permitted. And a lot is knowing the law and your limits. Even though we have the “castle law”, basically the right to defend, even TN has areas that lean FAR left and that has it’s own “version” of state laws.
My instructor for the written exam told us “if you ever have to shoot someone in your home or on your property, the first person you call is your ATTORNEY, then the police. And keep your mouth shut until the attorney gets there.
I also lived in TX - now that’s a place that is WELL defended.

But the bottom line is criminals will ALWAYS acquire firearms, no matter what laws are in place, and there is seemingly little interest in addressing that.

 

[Longing for Home]

I know that "training" can be different for instructors across the board. Some instructors will happily take your money and sign off on whatever they need to regardless. I know other instructors that just won't pass anyone if they show a disregard for safety. I naturally assumed when I joined law enforcement that everyone that I was at the academy with had a good functional knowledge of firearms and were safe. My eyes were opened during firearms week to say the least. I say all that to say, everyone should receive training and continued training after that. I can qualify once a year and get my retired law enforcement credentials to carry but also have my CC permit.

At the end of the day a criminal will get a firearm from somewhere whether legally or illegally. The best thing anyone can do is watch your surroundings, have an escape plan, and be prepared to defend yourself, your family, and others if needed. My wife and I are practitioners of Krav Maga as well.

 

[mattfivefour]

I know that "training" can be different for instructors across the board. Some instructors will happily take your money and sign off on whatever they need to regardless. I know other instructors that just won't pass anyone if they show a disregard for safety. I naturally assumed when I joined law enforcement that everyone that I was at the academy with had a good functional knowledge of firearms and were safe. My eyes were opened during firearms week to say the least. I say all that to say, everyone should receive training and continued training after that. I can qualify once a year and get my retired law enforcement credentials to carry but also have my CC permit.

At the end of the day a criminal will get a firearm from somewhere whether legally or illegally. The best thing anyone can do is watch your surroundings, have an escape plan, and be prepared to defend yourself, your family, and others if needed. My wife and I are practitioners of Krav Maga as well.

Great advice! Those who focus on the harmless as doves portion of Matthew 10:16 forget about the "wise (Greek φρόνιμος [phronimos] = intelligent, prudent, sensible) as serpents" part.

 

[DWB]

Like DWB, I am also in TN and went through the same classes, written exam, and range test for concealed carry. But at least in our county, the sheriff’s depts. offer some good free classes several times a year, for beginners as well as further training for those already permitted. And a lot is knowing the law and your limits. Even though we have the “castle law”, basically the right to defend, even TN has areas that lean FAR left and that has it’s own “version” of state laws.
My instructor for the written exam told us “if you ever have to shoot someone in your home or on your property, the first person you call is your ATTORNEY, then the police. And keep your mouth shut until the attorney gets there.
I also lived in TX - now that’s a place that is WELL defended.

But the bottom line is criminals will ALWAYS acquire firearms, no matter what laws are in place, and there is seemingly little interest in addressing that.

I was advised also about getting a lawyer if I ever had to use a weapon in self defense. You may not be charged by the authorities, but you would most likely get hit with a civil case from the other's family.

 

[DanLMP]

I was advised also about getting a lawyer if I ever had to use a weapon in self defense. You may not be charged by the authorities, but you would most likely get hit with a civil case from the other's family.

Check into USCCA. I believe they have insurance plans.

 

[mattfivefour]

Check into USCCA. I believe they have insurance plans.

Based on my research, U.S. Law Shield is less expensive, covers at least as much, and has NO limit on what they will pay. USCCA does cap expenses. Just fyi. (Also USCCA swamps your email inbox every day with offers and 3rd party advertisements.)