Now New Yorkers who request a concealed carry permit must provide the social media history to authorities.
Then government bureaucrats will decide if you qualify for a permit.
What could go wrong?
Governor Hochul tweeted this out on Saturday.
These new rules totally disregard the Supreme Court ruling earlier this week that New York’s law that includes strict rules for concealed carry in the state.
In their decision, the Supreme Court struck down the New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public.
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said she doesn’t “need to have numbers” to back up her strict gun control proposals.
Hochul is set to convene a special session Thursday to push through new tighter gun control restrictions after the Supreme Court recently overturned a nearly century-old law that restricted concealed carry permits. Among the proposals include banning firearms from government buildings, courthouses, hospitals and schools. Another proposal would ban firearms at any private business unless the business has a sign explicitly stating guns are allowed, CBS 6 Albany reported.
Speaking at a press briefing Wednesday, Hochul said after the high court overturned the law, gun owners would carry more.
“All of a sudden now you’re on the streets. Now you’re going to bars, this is not the Wild West, this is New York State,” Hochul said.
A reporter then asked whether Hochul had any data to support her gun control push.
“Do you have the numbers to show that it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes? Because the lawful gun owner will say that you’re attacking the wrong person, that it’s really the people getting the guns illegally that are causing the violence not the people going and getting the permit legally. Do you have the numbers?”
“I don’t need to have numbers. I don’t need to have a data point to say this. I know that I have a responsibility to the people of this state to have sensible gun safety laws, and this one was not devised by the Hochul administration. It comes out of an administration from 1908. I don’t need a data point to say I have a responsibility to protect the people of this state.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen on Thursday didn’t simply shoot down New York’s onerous “good-cause requirement” in the gun permit application process. It set up similar laws in other states for likely revocation. One of those states is California, where they have their own requirement that applicants must show a “good cause” or “special need” before a carry permit is issued. State Attorney General Rob Bonta sent out a letter on Friday to law enforcement and government attorneys noting the change and saying that the state’s current “may issue” regime should be able to be converted to a “shall issue” regime with few modifications. So that’s good news, right?
Not so fast. As Eugene Volokh points out at Reason, Bonta pivoted from signaling compliance with the new SCOTUS ruling to identifying another way to deny permits to people with no criminal record. He claims that the ruling will not impact the existing requirement for applicants to be able to demonstrate that they are “of good moral character.” On that basis, the state can start snooping around to see if you hold any unauthorized opinions or are prone to demonstrate “hatred and racism.” And how would they know that? Well, by going through your social media accounts, of course.
As the Senate passed a gun control bill this week with fifteen Republicans siding with Democrats, Senator Rand Paul noted that no one had time to even read the legislation because it was “assembled in secret.”
“Unfortunately, this legislation was assembled as many are — in secret, absent well-placed leaks to journalists,” Paul tweeted, adding “There doesn’t appear to be a willingness or time provided to read, understand, debate or amend this bill.”
The Senator further vowed to try to introduce amendments to the bill to “correct the constitutional deficiencies.”
The Senate voted 64-34 Tuesday night to advance the bill.
How can any elected official sincerely decide on legislation without reading it or debating it?
The Supreme Court voted 6–3 on June 23 to strike down New York state’s draconian concealed-carry gun permitting system on constitutional grounds.
The Supreme Court has been strengthening Second Amendment protections in recent years and observers have said the court’s 6–3 conservative supermajority could help expand gun ownership protections. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), it held that this right “is fully applicable to the States.”
The ruling comes amid rising crime rates, activist demands to defund police departments, and a Biden administration push to strengthen gun control policies. A gun control package, introduced in the wake of a series of high-profile mass shootings, is moving forward in Congress.
The Empire State’s gun permit law, like laws in seven other states, generally requires an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” in order to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.
New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so, according to state law. An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” according to a 1980 ruling by the Supreme Court of New York in Klenosky v. New York City Police Department.
The specific issue before the court was whether the state’s denial of the petitioning individuals’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violates the U.S. Constitution.
The Biden administration has reportedly ordered an ammunition manufacturer to stop selling Americans some 5.56mm rounds, which is the most common for the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
In an effort to severely limit the sale of ammo used in AR-15s, the U.S. military has ordered Winchester – which manages the U.S. Army’s Lake City ammunition plant – to stop selling its excess M855/SS109 (5.56mm) ammo to the public, The Truth About Guns reported citing a source close to the matter.
The Lake City plant, located in Independence, Missouri, produces nearly 30 percent of the commercial market’s sales of 5.56 ammo.
Larry Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s general counsel and senior vice president, first revealed the administration’s plans in a tweet on Wednesday.
If Congress won’t ban AR-15s, Democratic Rep. Don Beyer (VA) wants to slap a 1,000% tax on them – which would of course mean only people with lots of money, such as drug dealers and rich people, could afford them, while punishing lower-income Americans.
Introduced last week, Beyer’s Assault Weapons Excise Act has 36 Democratic co-sponsors, according to the Washington Post. The group hopes the idea might bypass the Senate filibuster, which would require the support of at least 10 Republicans.
According to Beyer, the idea is to increase the price to such a degree that it significantly limits who’s able to buy them. The tax would also apply to high-capacity magazines.
“It’s trying to hit the sweet spot, where it’s not an all-out ban, but people’s independent purchasing decisions would be much more ‘no’ than ‘yes,’” Beyer told the Post, adding. “You want to shift the demand curve pretty significantly.”
Beyer said part of the thinking behind the 1,000 percent figure was to have a high-enough fiscal impact that the Senate parliamentarian would find it qualifies for inclusion in a reconciliation package, meaning it could pass the Senate with a simple majority. -WaPo
“In a nation crying out for progress on gun safety, we would present a plausible way forward in this Senate,” he said.
The tax would only apply to newly purchased guns, and would not apply to government buyers. The proceeds would go into the general fund.