And So It Begins: Colion Breaks Down New CCW Requirements In New York

[L84Cabo]

You gotta give the tyrants credit for being creative.

Not only is just about every place now a "sensitive place," you cannot carry into a business unless they specifically post a sign stating that it is ok. Thus they have made the default to be, "every building is illegal to carry in." And if you do carry there on accident, you could be convicted of a felony.

Other nonsense includes that permits are now only good for three years instead of previous five, and you must surrender ALL social media accounts/handles to the state so they can comb through them and decide if you're a threat or not. There's an interview where you have to provide names of all family members and you have to provide FOUR references from people outside your family that can attest to you being of good moral character.

This is nuts. And they need to be spanked by SCOTUS. You can also bet CA will copy this...plus add their own twists.

Read More

 

[CamoDeafie]

Tyrants gonna tyrant.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

You gotta give the tyrants credit for being creative.

Not only is just about every place now a "sensitive place," you cannot carry into a business unless they specifically post a sign stating that it is ok. Thus they have made the default to be, "every building is illegal to carry in." And if you do carry there on accident, you could be convicted of a felony.

Other nonsense includes that permits are now only good for three years instead of previous five, and you must surrender ALL social media accounts/handles to the state so they can comb through them and decide if you're a threat or not. There's an interview where you have to provide names of all family members and you have to provide FOUR references from people outside your family that can attest to you being of good moral character.

This is nuts. And they need to be spanked by SCOTUS. You can also bet CA will copy this...plus add their own twists.

No way that social media BS is going to stand up in court.

This is going to be a never ending cycle of make up new BS laws they know won't stand scrutiny but gives them short term control of citizens, it gets overturned by the court, repeat.

We need a fast constitution test that all new proposed laws must go through before being signed to prevent this.

 

[HA556]

And you know a blue state like Oregon will not allow themselves to be outdone! As stated in other threads, it's a coming!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

And you know a blue state like Oregon will not allow themselves to be outdone! As stated in other threads, it's a coming!

Massive-scale noncompliance with laws we know are unconstitutional is only solution I can see at the moment. It would also help if all law enforcement joined that bandwagon of noncompliance when unconstitutional laws are passed.

 

[CamoDeafie]

law enforcement joined that bandwagon to what extent possible.

Riight.... like how NYS police and the specific NYC NYPD departments are gonna be involved with/in support disobedience of NYS/NYC "laws and rules"? lets not forget, OSP here seem to be all in with gun control laws.. at the least, they're the ones running the BG checks

 

[HA556]

Massive-scale noncompliance with laws we know are unconstitutional is only solution I can see at the moment. It would also help if all law enforcement joined that bandwagon of noncompliance when unconstitutional laws are passed.

I agree but, people nowadays are to afraid to stand up for the right but, seem brave enough to stand up for the wrong when supported by high numbers! Tells you just how out numbered we are!

 

[L84Cabo]

Massive-scale noncompliance with laws we know are unconstitutional is only solution I can see at the moment. It would also help if all law enforcement joined that bandwagon of noncompliance when unconstitutional laws are passed.

^^^^ THIS is the way.

Here is my social media account list:

GoEffYourself.com

And seriously...consider having to surrender all of your gun forum handles/accounts? I mean, I've lost track of the number of times I've stated, "our founders would be shooting people by now," in response to tyrannical actions committed by the state. How do you think that would play out in a request for a CCW permit?

BTW...if our founders were alive today and saw what New York had just done...they'd be shooting people by now.

The tyrants can seriously go EFF themselves.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

^^^^ THIS is the way.

Here is my social media account list:

GoEffYourself.com

And seriously...consider having to surrender all of your gun forum handles/accounts? I mean, I've lost track of the number of times I've stated, "our founders would be shooting people by now," in response to tyrannical actions committed by the state. How do you think that would play out in a request for a CCW permit?

BTW...if our founders were alive today and saw what New York had just done...they'd be shooting people by now.

The tyrants can seriously go EFF themselves.

Yep that is infringement of both 1st and 2nd amendments imo.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Tyrants gonna tyrant.

Yep

DrNaomiRWolf on GETTR : Thrown almost physically out of a restaurant in Salem OR, Epilogue, and called ‘motherfucker’ because I walked in unvaccinated and challenged what they had done..

Thrown almost physically out of a restaurant in Salem OR, Epilogue, and called ‘motherbubblegumer’ because I walked in unvaccinated and challenged what they had done..

gettr.com

 

[Hawaiian]

Then they must apply the same conditions/restrictions on ALL constitutional rights. Let's start with the right to vote! NY will love that one. The court ruled the 2nd amendment is not a second class right.

 

[Member 53328]

Massive-scale noncompliance with laws we know are unconstitutional is only solution I can see at the moment. It would also help if all law enforcement joined that bandwagon of noncompliance when unconstitutional laws are passed.

Sadly the majority of gun owners (this forum included) will continue to bow and follow unconstitutional laws. Not all but most. It's one thing to preach non compliance from the safety behind a keyboard it's another to actually participate and practice it. It's almost Independence Day. I bet the founding fathers would be proud…..

I try my best to follow the law. Always have. But it's becoming harder and harder to do as time goes on. Eventually you have to stand your ground. The "line in the sand" is different for everyone. Just be ready for the consequences for when you stand. What's freedom worth? What are you willing to sacrifice?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Sadly the majority of gun owners (this forum included) will continue to bow and follow unconstitutional laws. Not all but most. It's one thing to preach non compliance from the safety behind a keyboard it's another to actually participate and practice it. It's almost Independence Day. I bet the founding fathers would be proud…..

Yup. Too many people in the United States are comfortable, complacent, content, and complicit. Until things get much worse... its more virtue signaling and keyboard-warriorship.

I try my best to follow the law. Always have. But it's becoming harder and harder to do as time goes on. Eventually you have to stand your ground. The "line in the sand" is different for everyone. Just be ready for the consequences for when you stand. What's freedom worth? What are you willing to sacrifice?

Indeed. Looking at how hard the "authorities" went after those involved with the Jan 6th thing, compared to how hard they went after those who literally burned much of DC after Trump's win...

 

[titsonritz]

New York likes being sued.

 

[red442joe]

What'd we do to the British??

Joe

 

[CamoDeafie]

New York likes being sued.

No shortage of lawyers there

 

[Provincial]

I would like a constitutional amendment (at the State and/or Federal level) that makes anyone involved with passing an unconstitutional law or regulation, or who enforces that law, liable (Joint and Several) for any damages resulting from that law or regulation, including legal fees of both the State and the victims. This Amendment would supersede and take precedence over any previous law, case law, judicial interpretation, or convention which protects elected officials and government agents/employees from responsibility of their actions, and make them responsible for the expenses and damages incurred, with no asset protected by any previous law, case law, judicial interpretation, or convention, including pensions, trust funds, and inheritances. In the case of trust funds, the entire fund would be available for judgement, and no distributions from that fund would be allowed until the ultimate resolution of any lawsuit.

Joint and Several definition:

Joint and several liability is a legal term defining shared responsibility of two or more parties in a lawsuit. If two or more parties are jointly and severally liable for a harmful act, each one of them can be sued independently, and will be independently liable for the injuries from the act as per common law.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I would like a constitutional amendment (at the State and/or Federal level) that makes anyone involved with passing an unconstitutional law or regulation, or who enforces that law, liable (Joint and Several) for any damages resulting from that law or regulation, including legal fees of both the State and the victims. This Amendment would supersede and take precedence over any previous law, case law, judicial interpretation, or convention which protects elected officials and government agents/employees from responsibility of their actions, and make them responsible for the expenses and damages incurred, with no asset protected by any previous law, case law, judicial interpretation, or convention, including pensions, trust funds, and inheritances. In the case of trust funds, the entire fund would be available for judgement, and no distributions from that fund would be allowed until the ultimate resolution of any lawsuit.

Joint and Several definition:

Joint and several liability is a legal term defining shared responsibility of two or more parties in a lawsuit. If two or more parties are jointly and severally liable for a harmful act, each one of them can be sued independently, and will be independently liable for the injuries from the act as per common law.

Sections 241, 242 under 18 US Code. These covers what you're speaking of.

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

www.law.cornell.edu

This however requires the FBI, DOJ, and US Marshals to be used in prosecuting Congress people for such crimes, and the problem is essentially.. "who controls the DOJ/FBI?"


Edit. It might be of use against Federal Agents breaking the Constitutional laws (coughs ATF coughs) but again.. Fed Agents are essentially sacrificial lambs. The problem is much further up the food chain.

 

[Provincial]

Those U.S. Codes don't address the current interpretations, which result in legitimizing the attempt to violate Constitutional Rights by removing responsibility for passing/enforcing an unconstitutional law by essentially saying "it is OK to attempt to violate the Constitution, as long as it is either upheld or that violation is not continued exactly as prohibited after all legal appeals have ended." In other words, it is legal to try to violate Constitutional Rights, and the perpetrators are not responsible as long as the felt that they were doing the right thing. That is why my Amendment covers assets, including Trust Funds. Make those in power risk it all if they want to overstep!

 

[CamoDeafie]

Those U.S. Codes don't address the current interpretations, which result in legitimizing the attempt to violate Constitutional Rights by removing responsibility for passing/enforcing an unconstitutional law by essentially saying "it is OK to attempt to violate the Constitution, as long as it is either upheld or that violation is not continued exactly as prohibited after all legal appeals have ended." In other words, it is legal to try to violate Constitutional Rights, and the perpetrators are not responsible as long as the felt that they were doing the right thing. That is why my Amendment covers assets, including Trust Funds. Make those in power risk it all if they want to overstep!

And that, is why the SCOTUS had long been neglient of their original job which is to review bills proposed/passed by Congress, to see if they pass Constitutional muster the way its written versus the way it was interpreted