Yes (at least, AFAIK):
From this article:
It looks like New York police will still be able to restrict its residents from carrying firearms during the festivities, but it seems that these festivities happen to attract non-residents in droves.
BTW, has anyone brought up the unfairness of locals having to obey the local gun laws, while all those outsiders get to follow the less restrictive laws from wherever it is they came from? Seems to me that is going to breed some resentment after a while.
The quote about SF isn’t correct. The county of SF does not issue permits, however other counties in CA do issue permits and those permits are valid state wide. So a person who resides in Placer county (Lake Tahoe and other areas) who has a permit could visit SF while legally armed. That’s current state law. So CA doesnt restrict its residents from carrying in SF.
Given that I’m suspicious about the slant of the rest of the article.
Other laws in the state such as those that prohibit carrying within a certain distance or on school grounds still apply.
Post 103:
My understanding of the effect of this law is this:
There is a class of people known as CCW permit holders. Utah happens to recognize every states’ permits, so the effect on Utah is basically zero, but Utah decides where within Utah that class of CCWPH people can and cannot carry. For example, Utah allows CCWPHs to carry at colleges, or in restaurants that serve alcohol, but not in jails, or churches that notify that they are restricting concealed-carry.
Likewise, California decides where within the state of California CCWPH can carry. [del]For the example in your article, CCWPH cannot carry in San Fran.[/del] (ETA: Thank you Bone)
Having a permit from another state puts me in that class of CCWPHs, but does not give me any special privileges above and beyond what a CA CCWPH or a NY CCWPH has.
Interesting – I did not realize that the Supreme Court denied cert on a case intending to challenge California’s CCW laws on the basis that such laws violate the Second Amendment.
Here’s Thomas and Gorsuch decrying the decision:
“Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.”
It’s interesting that the conservative-leaning court didn’t have an interest in the case.
I think most are a bit nervous about how broadly / narrowly Justice Kennedy might interpret the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
It’s interesting as much as it’s disappointing. Given that, and the recent decision of DC to not appeal the carry ruling in Palmer, there are very few if any jurisdictions left in which to litigate. All the circuits where there are schemes that prohibit carry have ruled and those cases have been petitioned for cert and all have been denied since Heller and McDonald. MD (Woolard), NJ (Drake), CA (Peruta), and NY (Kachalsky) were all denied cert, and each had the same “may issue” scheme that allowed those states to effectively ban carry. The only circuit that was successful in overturning this setup was the 7th in Moore v. Madigan. So we have a circuit and the District that says carry is a fundamental right and it can’t be prohibited, and the other circuits saying, nah.
It’s hard to say exactly what SCOTUS is thinking. Perhaps someone like Alito read the tea leaves and knew they didn’t have 5 votes so torpedoed cert, while at the same time Thomas can voice his disdain. That’s the best case scenario - that folks like Alito and Roberts are biding their time for when they know they have 5 votes and only then would they take up a case. I’m highly skeptical that’d be the case. In reality it’s probably not a front and center issue so they are willing to let it go, especially knowing at the liberal wing would never acquiesce.
Think about cert denial in Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco. There the city of SF passed an ordinance that required guns kept in the home to be disabled in direct contradiction to the ruling in Heller which struck down that same requirement. When the suit requested cert because the 9th circuit refused to address it, SCOTUS also punted. In that Thomas and then Scalia also published dissents. These things together lead me to believe that SCOTUS doesn’t really have an interest in enforcing their ruling in Heller so I’m not very optimistic in general given the current makeup. Gorsuch was just preserving the status quo. To make my desired progress we need to replace the weak links like Kennedy and Ginsburg. If Trump is able to nominate and have their replacements confirmed, then it’s a whole new ball game.
So you consider gun possession near schools to be a topic area? An area that the federal government cannot legislate on? Then how come they did?
Congress simply added an interstate commerce “hook” to the legislation. The legislation now states:
“It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.”
“Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.”
I don’t think that anyone thinks that the law doesn’t have exactly the same effect as before because Wickard v. Filburn is still good law.
Lopez doesn’t stand for the notion that the commerce clause cannot reach certain topic areas. Lopez stands for the principle that congress has to at least pretend that they are concerned about interstate commerce.
Also guns that affect interstate commerce. Under Wickard v Filburn, that’s all the guns, even the ones you grow to feed your pigs.
Yes, you’re right. I’m OK with those sort of restrictions on the guns that can be used for out-of-state-CCW too.
Just because the right claims to regard states’ rights as an important principle, doesn’t mean the left is your mirror image on this issue.
The left is concerned with other things, like establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and so forth. Do I personally favor state or Federal regulation on a given issue? Let me see which serves the above ends best, and I’ll get back to you.
BTW, back to the bill, here is an article on its Senate prospects:
For the record, I consider that “improvement” to the gun free school zones law to be non-substantive, and the courts are making a mistake in not questioning it.
Ravenman, not looking for a “gotcha” moment, but I’m curious if you could put your overall philosophy on federalism / states’ rights / the limits of the commerce clause into a paragraph or two for us? What, in your views, are proper historical exercises of the commerce clause vs which ones do you think were inappropriate? How do you feel about the DEA? the EPA? the rest of the federal gun-control scheme?
For what? That these are constitutional rights? Or that you can’t prohibit things like gay marriage on public policy grounds? Why exactly do You think it is that states are not able to ban gay marriage on public policy grounds?
The new law operates exactly the same as the old law except it has the words interstate commerce in it.
I’m not familiar with the case, did they have the words interstate commerce somewhere in the bill?
Sure, someone would challenge it. And they would probably lose because there isn’t a really good constitutional challenge AFAICT the legislation very deliberately invokes interstate commerce.
Doesn’t this happen all the time. Driver’s licenses from states with varying criteria. Marriage licenses from states with varying criteria. etc.
I would prefer a federally uniform standard but I think either way works.
Yoor eider wit us or agin us!!!
Both sides do this.
(bolding mine)I don’t know if you are looking for a “gotcha” or not but the terminology used in the last sentence seems to poison the well just a bit.
I don’t think anyone should consider those changes to be substantive but the courts frequently swing their opinion based on things like whether there is a congressional record of congress looking into a question and deciding that there is an important public policy at stake. Even when that inquiry was done by the majority party as they were shoving things down the other party’s throat.
Moral of the story is: elections have consequences.
The Democratic party has lost over 1000 state legislators and other elected officials in the last couple of decades. They have lost the house and the senate. They have lost the white house and if actuarial tables have any predictive value at all, they are likely to lose their balance in the supreme court.
Perhaps they should stop shooting themselves in the foot with guns.
I am pretty sure that Hurricane Ditka is in favor of at least some parts of the federal gun control scheme.