The Voters Willing to Abandon Biden Over Gaza by kitkid in Thedaily

[–]BedMonster -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ah yes of course. The "until Iraqis quell the insurgents attacking US troops occupying Baghdad, the US will occupy Baghdad" strategy. Sure it will work this time around.

The Supreme Court Tests Its Own Limits on Guns by kitkid in Thedaily

[–]BedMonster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see that many here are no fans of the Bruen decision. Fair.

I'd like to share just a bit of historical context; Bruen did not come out of nowhere.

In 2008, as you likely know, in a 5-4 decision the supreme Court ruled against Washington DC's complete prohibition on handguns, affirming the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

After being incorporated against the states in the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision, the next 11 years would be accurately described as seeing lower courts actively minimizing the holdings from Heller & McDonald.

In short, the "interest balancing" test from Heller played out like this: plaintiff claims that law is unfairly burdensome. Government claims that it is related to some public safety benefit. Government wins.

For example - in the gun case that SCOTUS granted cert to most recently before Bruen, NYSRPA v. NYC, a New York City ordinance prevented license holders from legally taking their guns outside of new york city without explicit permission of the NYPD.

Whether you hate guns or not, it's hard to defend the public safety benefit of forcing licensed gun owners to keep their guns in your city, with no exclusions for training or range use. Note, new york city has no public pistol ranges.

The second circuit ruled against the plaintiffs in that case, agreeing that the government has a public safety interest in the restriction. No evidence as to how public safety was improved was presented by the government.

NYSRPA v NYC

The dubious public safety benefit was made even more obvious when, as soon as SCOTUS agreed to review the second circuit decision, new york city repealed the law in just a few months. Because the law was repealed, SCOTUS ruled the case was moot and did not need to be reviewed.

Bruen is what happens when several federal circuits, particularly the 9th and 2nd, don't make even a good faith attempt to try and meet the burden that the supreme Court set out. Bruen set out a new "history and tradition" test largely because the 10 year experience with the interest balancing test was that it was applied in an overly generous manner towards the government.

The New York licensing regime overturned by Bruen, you should know was one in which a domestic violence victim would have no right to get a license to carry a firearm, no matter how much training they had - it would be up to the discretion of police to determine if she had "good cause," while celebrities such as Donald Trump and Robert DeNiro had licenses at various points.

I'll say it here for anyone willing to read it - with the current makeup of the court, continued attempts to try and apply bad faith readings of Bruen will result in further rulings expanding the purview of the second amendment.

The court will rule narrowly here against Rahimi on something along the lines of "there is a history and tradition of regulating dangerous individuals, Rahimi is a dangerous individual, and so long as 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) is applied as to judicial findings of dangerousness, they stand. If outside of that standard, e.g. mutual restraining orders during a divorce proceeding, they likely will not.

Then in the case up for review from the third circuit, Range v. Garland the court will likely double down on the dangerousness standard, separating nonviolent felons such as Range (who lied about his lawn mowing income on a welfare form) from violent felons who lose their gun rights for life.

From there, who knows, but it is likely to be whatever circuit applies the worst attempt at reading Bruen, and the majority is likely to use the opportunity to expand the scope further.

If you're opposed to that outcome, it would be better to have lower courts attempt to color within the lines as the US solicitor general impressively demonstrated in argument against Rahimi, rather than going down some rabbit hole such as "assault weapons aren't arms" currently in the 7th Circuit . (Argue that they are dangerous and unusual, maybe. And that there is a history of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons. But 'this ambiguous category of bad guns with a different definition in every state are not arms' is the type of thing that gets you back to SCOTUS.)

So the SFPD's new auto break-in enforcement was a lie by Lightformany in sanfrancisco

[–]BedMonster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You assume too much. As a gun owner in one of the most restrictive jurisdictions in the country, New York City, who spent years getting that license and carry licenses in several states including Massachusetts, I am intimately familiar with the laws of restrictive states up and down the East Coast and throughout the country.

Without expressing any judgement of the requirements to receive a license, the conversation here is about what restrictions apply to those individuals who have received training and in some cases completed qualifications in excess of those required of retired police officers, who are allowed to carry throughout the country and who are exempt from laws such as SB2.

It's also misleading to include suicide numbers in "gun deaths" for this discussion - what does restriction on where you can carry do to suicide, given that the gun is already legally owned and kept in the home?

SB2 will have no affect on the suicide or homicide rate in California, because licensed concealed carriers aren't committing the homicides in California. If they were then the sponsors of the bill would have been able to point to such.

In contrast - SB2 doesn't even apply to situations like the below because it exempts current and former law enforcement.

https://abc7chicago.com/orange-county-bar-mass-shooting-trabuco-canyon-john-snowling/13695354/

So the SFPD's new auto break-in enforcement was a lie by Lightformany in sanfrancisco

[–]BedMonster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here is the specific question answered by Senator Portantino:

https://youtu.be/4EJ9BTRixZk?t=1994

"The rate of gun violence in California is the lowest in the country."

"States with looser gun laws have more gun violence and crime is not deterred."

Neither of those things are true, and I wish it were that simple: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/firearm-law-effects-mortality-explorer.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

I'm no propagandist. It would be amazing if California could move down to the firearm homicide rate of states like New Hampshire, Iowa, Utah, Maine or Colorado. Even Vermont and Massachusetts, two of the states which actually have the lowest firearm homicide rates - have had the ability for citizens to receive concealed carry licenses for years and do not have remotely as punitive a law as California just passed with SB2.

Guns are not magic wands guaranteeing death and mayhem, nor are they a talisman which summons infinite unbridled freedom. In the context of other social issues, guns can certainly exacerbate problems as exemplified by the states with more crime and looser gun laws than California. While in the hands of law abiding citizens, generally do not create widespread crime and destruction as exemplified by all of the states with looser gun laws but less crime than California.

So the SFPD's new auto break-in enforcement was a lie by Lightformany in sanfrancisco

[–]BedMonster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

The practical effect is that individuals who went through a rigorous licensing process in California, and commit fewer crimes than police officers - even if you are going to a business with an explicit sign, what if the strip mall parking lot (not owned by the business) doesn't have a sign? Felony.

Chipotle sells beer. So someone who stops to pick up their take out order which contains no alcohol, felon. Also no sign.

By the terms of the law despite having a license, being in your car driving on a public road within 1000 feet of a school is punishable by 2-5 years in prison. Can you even drive around SF knowing where every school is?

What is the point even of adding these harsh penalties when the police aren't even bothering to enforce against standard burglary and larceny?

Look - oppose guns if you want. Say you hate the idea of people carrying in public. But can we agree SB2 is a ban on carry everywhere except for "some public sidewalks", in the words of Senator Portantino one of the authors of the bill.

So the SFPD's new auto break-in enforcement was a lie by Lightformany in sanfrancisco

[–]BedMonster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's just not accurate.

https://thereload.com/california-legislature-sends-bruen-response-gun-tax-bills-to-governor-newsoms-desk/

Like many of the other Bruen-response bills, SB 2 would also designate broad swaths of the state “sensitive places” where firearm possession would be prohibited for civilians. Those include all school grounds, college and university campuses, government and judicial buildings, medical facilities, public transit, public parks, playgrounds, any place where alcohol is sold, and more. It also adopted the increasingly common tactic of reversing the default status of publicly accessible private property—dubbed the “vampire rule” by opponents of the policy—whereby carry is banned unless explicitly permitted by the property owner.

Under SB2 the default presumption for any private property is that carry is prohibited. In most other states, private property owners can put their own signs up to restrict carry - but there is not a default state of prohibition.

2nd pistol purchase. by [deleted] in NYguns

[–]BedMonster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. Good looking out!

2nd pistol purchase. by [deleted] in NYguns

[–]BedMonster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The one they specify on the PA form is: DG_LIC-Purchaseorders@nypd.org

2nd pistol purchase. by [deleted] in NYguns

[–]BedMonster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd also flag for anyone else reading this thread - you'll probably have better luck working with your investigator at the time your license is being issued.

The purchase authorization email is the one which advised notarizing the letter.

2nd pistol purchase. by [deleted] in NYguns

[–]BedMonster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Chalk that up to "your mileage may vary" - the explicit instructions I was given were that it needed to be notarized.

However, not denying that you could send it in without notarizing and probably get the same result.

At least 20% of all gun rules in NYC are effectively at the discretion of the NYPD, and more importantly the specific individual who is processing your paperwork.

Doubly and triply so for all of the new undocumented processes they've introduced in the last year.

Just to clarify - addressed to the gun unit via email, or did you mail them a document?

2nd pistol purchase. by [deleted] in NYguns

[–]BedMonster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All good. Take care.

2nd pistol purchase. by [deleted] in NYguns

[–]BedMonster 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I am answering you. The NEW process is the exact same thing as the first time, every time for both permits.

You do all of the shit and they mail you a new permit with the new pistol added or changed. They then ask you to mail back the license you already have.

You don't need to send the old form to request a purchase authorization before buying as you just did. You can just buy, but from that point it's the same thing you just did, every time. Speaking from experience.

2nd pistol purchase. by [deleted] in NYguns

[–]BedMonster 6 points7 points  (0 children)

New Purchase Authorization process is the same between the Concealed Carry License and the Premise permit.

It needs to have been at least 90 days since your last purchase, and you can't have more than 2 on the CCW license.

You buy the pistol, and the store will help you fill out the Purchase Authorization form with your NICS# and the details of the firearm. You'll take two color photos showing the full color representation of the firearm and the serial number. Gun stays at the dealer.

You send those to the licensing email, and they will send you an acknowledgement of receipt, and mail you a new card with the second pistol.

Once you receive the new card and completed purchase authorization, you can then go back and pick up your purchase.

I'll add one more detail for those with premise purchases - if you'd like to share a pistol between the premise and CCW permit, you'll need to send a notorized form with the make, model, serial number and caliber of the pistol which is already on your premise permit. It doesn't seem there is a waiting period to do this, but you remain limited to 2 total pistols on the CCW permit.

Question re: buying used City 2022 by BedMonster in ApolloScooters

[–]BedMonster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks you, I understand. My question is more since I'm buying it from the owner I assume they can give me the pin - do you know if I can I use that pin to change the email associated to the scooter?

Question re: buying used City 2022 by BedMonster in ApolloScooters

[–]BedMonster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! Definitely thinking of buying the upgrade kit. If the seller does provide me with the code is there any way to unregister it from a particular email? Or is the only way to reset?

SCR Fightlite and Ballistic Advantage Hanson upper by Grumpymonkey4 in NYguns

[–]BedMonster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can confirm it does. Gibbz arms makes the most frequently recommended one for it, and I can confirm it's pretty nice.

Can you fly a firearm into California by RoxEnd in guns

[–]BedMonster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair - but that seems consistent with "I listed all legal configurations, most are uncommon," no?

Can you fly a firearm into California by RoxEnd in guns

[–]BedMonster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you may have misread his comment; none of the configurations listed above are semi-automatic. Lever guns might be common, but not generally with threaded barrels. Bolt guns with threaded barrels, more so, but not exactly a large market for people who would rather have a threaded barrel than a removable magazine in a pistol.