New Yorkers’ Fever Dreams of Concealed Carry Reciprocity: IMI Systems Quote of the Day

New York University School of Law Professor James Jacobs

courtesy nyu.edu

“I suppose NYPD would try to require an out-of-state concealed carrier to sign in [or] register with the NYPD so we would have a record of who is legally carrying. That would entail a cost [and] makes the case against the federal law a bit stronger. But the feds would argue that they did not ‘impose’ that cost.” – New York University School of Law Professor James Jacobs in What the New ‘Concealed Carry’ Gun Law Could Mean for NYC [via citylimits.org]

 

Win IMI Ammo

comments

  1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    oh noooow they worry about how much gun control will cost…. Fucking idiots.

  2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    I suppose NYPD would try to require an out-of-state concealed carrier to sign in [or] register with the NYPD so we would have a record of who is legally carrying.

    I suppose NY, the NYPD, King George DeBlasio, and this law professor would like to have such a record. But my lawful activities are none of the government’s, or your, business.

    Your “Papers, Please!” fever dreams are a direct affront to liberty.

    1. avatar 41mag says:

      Thought experiment:

      You’re the first out-of-state CCW to defend yourself and shoot…and it goes to NYC Dist Atty.

      What would happen, given the “Empire” state hates us 2A people?

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      2. avatar cmac890 says:

        The phrase “the process is the punishment” comes to mind.

      3. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

        They will strap you down and allow King Kong and Godzilla to tag team you (without lube or protection) while Mecha Godzilla and Mothra film it to post to the interwebs.

        1. avatar ironicatbest says:

          Owwwww, ooooh aaahhh ,. ,,,,,,, go go Godzilla

      4. avatar TexTed says:

        Brilliant point, 41MAG.

        They may very well make self defense illegal. After all, the 2A says you can “keep and bear” arms, but it doesn’t say you can “use” them to defend yourself. If they made the action of firing a weapon inherently illegal, they might find a way around this.

        It would still be a huge improvement for folks though; those of us who travel would be able to (as we’re only keeping and bearing) and those who actually are in immediate peril of death would be able to fire, they’d just be “judged by 12 instead of carried by six”.

        But I think you’re on to something, and that’s probably the type of tactic that the anti-states will take. Same as Philadelphia recently banning bulletproof glass from stores…

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          One of the things I haven’t seen discussed about Heller is that it basically declares Americans have a constitutional right to self defense.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Municipal ordinances that have prohibited the discharge of firearms within city limits without exceptions for self defense have been struck down as unconstitutional. As noted, Heller seconds such holdings, at least in the home, with the implication the right exists outside the home as well–a conclusion various Eat Coast Circuits have been fighting tooth and nail, along with the Ninth Circuit.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “Municipal ordinances that have prohibited the discharge of firearms within city limits without exceptions for self defense have been struck down as unconstitutional” – Just curious, were those as applied challenges in self defense cases or facial challenges? I’d be surprised if they were facial challenges.

  3. avatar DaveL says:

    I suppose NYPD would try to require an out-of-state concealed carrier to sign in [or] register with the NYPD so we would have a record of who is legally carrying

    And I suppose the feds would bar them from doing so, as it makes little sense to enact CC reciprocity and then allow local governments to nullify it by the weight of arbitrary and capricious regulations. Next question?

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Such a registration would be illegal under the House Bill.

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    How about record of who is illegally carrying?
    Now that would be useful. Or not.

  5. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    “…require an out-of-state concealed carrier to sign in [or] register with the NYPD so we would have a record of who is legally carrying.”

    Would require out-of-state drivers to register with the NY State Police so we know who was legally driving their “high powered” sports cars with “high capacity” gas tanks.

    After all, those cars are vehicles designed for the track and have no place on NY’s roads.

    FIFY

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      I have a better analogy:

      “Okay, since the feds say so, we’re going to have to allow the black folks to vote. But since we have valid local concerns, we’re certainly going to want to institute literacy tests and a poll tax…”

      1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

        Gotta love modern times when it is perfectly O.K. for the state to bring back some golden oldies like Jim Crow so long as it is only aimed at gun owners….

  6. avatar HP says:

    This just goes to show you how out of touch people from NYC are with the rest of the country (and New York State, for that matter). No one visiting “the city” is going to register a damn thing with the NYPD. That isn’t how guns and freedom work in the rest of the country, at least outside of liberal dystopias like NYC. The hubris of NYC politicians is remarkable, but it’s hardly unique to people of consequence living there. It’s like they think they can snap their fingers and people will eagerly line up to give the police all the details about their guns and themselves. They might have city residents conditioned for that kind of subordination, but the rest of the country isn’t going to play ball. These people are the ones that think firearm confiscation is 100% possible by way of the government simply ordering people to turn their guns in. They can’t imagine a world in which people would dare disobey or question the authorities.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Well by best guestimates, 95% of the gun owning population in NY state can imagine, as they have chosen not to comply with the SAFE Act mandate for registration of certain scary black long guns and normal capacity magazines.

  7. avatar Gman says:

    National Reciprocity would be great. It is also unconstitutional. One could argue though, that the precedent set forth by the SCOTUS forcing gay marriage upon all the states may be equally applied to this issue. This entire problem exists because the SCOTUS has refused to end the discussion once and for all and do what is Constitutionally right and just. They need to say with one voice, What part of shall not be infringed don’t you fn understand? But me thinks that is unlikely to ever happen.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      National Reciprocity would be great. It is also unconstitutional.

      No, it isn’t.

      What is unconstitutional is licensing the exercise of a right constitutionally protected against infringement in the first place.

      The federal government forcing states to stop unconstitutionally infringing upon the rights of citizens is wholly right, and fully constitutional.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        As has been bantered about many times CC is NOT necessarily constitutionally protected. You would certainly would agree that the 2nd does not protect the bearing of arms in any manner whatsoever. That waving a gun around is not a protected bear. And as such one might equally argue that IF one can OC, then CC could be banned or vice versa. As long as one reasonable form of bear is allowed. So I would agree that states which do not restrict the OC bearing of arms may then choose to “license” CC bearing, or vice versa. I would also argue that any state which only offers a “license” option is violating the Constitution. As are states which virtually offer no option.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          As has been bantered about many times CC is NOT necessarily constitutionally protected. You would certainly would agree that the 2nd does not protect the bearing of arms in any manner whatsoever.

          To the contrary: that is exactly what I would argue.

          That waving a gun around is not a protected bear.

          To bear means to carry. A firearm in the hand is a firearm being used, not a firearm being carried.

          And as such one might equally argue that IF one can OC, then CC could be banned or vice versa. As long as one reasonable form of bear is allowed.

          The courts have taken this approach (generally; the 9th circus still ignores it). But again:
          I argue that all forms of carry are covered under shall not be infringed.

          So I would agree that states which do not restrict the OC bearing of arms may then choose to “license” CC bearing, or vice versa.

          Interestingly, the current legislation, while called “Concealed Carry” reciprocity, does not, to my reading, specify concealed carry in its text. It is more about carry licenses in general.

          I would also argue that any state which only offers a “license” option is violating the Constitution. As are states which virtually offer no option.

          I certainly agree on both points. I go further, and state that any state that licenses carry at all is violating the constitution.

        2. avatar JJ48 says:

          That waving a gun around is not a protected bear.

          The bearing of the firearm is not at issue in this example. It’s the brandishing that’s the problem.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Both bills protect the right of certain people in certain places to “possess or carry a concealed handgun.” So concealed.

      2. avatar Gman says:

        The federal government forcing states to stop unconstitutionally infringing upon the rights of citizens is wholly right, and fully constitutional.

        If that were the goal, the federal government could take them to court and argue the point up to the SCOTUS. And they would probably win. No, in this case they are force feeding the states, just as in the gay marriage issue. Either way, the issue will only be resolved in the SCOTUS.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” – Congress doesn’t need to wait on the Judiciary to enforce the BoR.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          McDonald v. Chicago resolved the issue that the Second Amendment applies to the States as well as to the federal government. I can safely assume that, absent a guard license, open carry is illegal in NYC. Thus, the only way to legally carry is concealed, and that is the right to bear in NYC which is protected by reciprocity, and under the due process clause, as neither the City can grant a license to (some of) its residents and refuse to allow any other US citizen the same right.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      In what insane corner of your brain is an act protecting the constitutional right to bear arms as incorporated by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment unconstitutional?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sorry kiddo. Enforcing the 2nd amendment on the States is a legitimate power of the federal government 14th became a thing.

        2. avatar TexTed says:

          And more specifically “a thing” since the 2nd was specifically incorporated against the states in Heller.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Well Serge, if you read the linked article, you would know that the 14A wasn’t legally ratified. So it’s not a thing.

          Yeah, like I’m going to give any weight to an argument that says the 14A isn’t a thing.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        This is not an act protecting the constitutional right to bear arms as incorporated by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment unconstitutional.

        The only reason we are having this discussion is because we are living a Constitutional crisis. One created by liberal states failing to uphold the clear and plain language of the 2nd all while supported by liberal courts and SCOTUS inaction. The ONLY answer is what is being called Constitutional Carry.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Chip and pwrserge,

      I think Gman meant that it would be unconstitutional for fedzilla to REQUIRE national reciprocity licensing as a pre-requisite for concealed carry.

      Requiring all states to recognize voluntary licensing should not be unconstitutional.

      If I am incorrect Gman, my apologies.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        You are incorrect. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate to the states that which solely resides within their state. The antithesis of that powerful Constitutional argument has been the Federal Government’s constant march, facilitated by the SCOTUS, towards total power over the states by twisting and contorting the Interstate Commerce Clause beyond all reason to take power from the states. Power it was never intended to have. The recent SCOTUS decision forcing gay marriage upon the states is just another example. That was not a true and just application of Full Faith and Credit. Thomas Jefferson once said that the unique wonder of these United States is that one can vote with their feet. If you don’ t like the law in your state, simply walk to another.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Again kiddo. 14th amendment. The 2nd applies to states and the federal government has the power to enforce compliance with the 2nd and 14th via legislation. Settled law for 150 years.

        2. avatar Gman says:

          Except that is NOT what they are doing. The law already exists (2nd). No new law need be written. The right and proper action is the Fed should take the states to court and sue them to properly apply the 2nd.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Gman,

          “The right and proper action is the Fed should take the states to court and sue them to properly apply the 2nd.”

          Or better yet, prosecute the responsible people at all levels of state for deprivation of rights under color of law.

          After fedzilla imprisons a governor, lieutenant governor, state attorney general, mayor, police chief, patrolman, Sheriff, deputy, prosecutor, judge, and bailiff, that stuff will stop faster than a snowball melts in a blast furnace.

  8. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Professor James Jacobs, believe me when I say you have stiff competition, but that may nevertheless be the most stupid remark out of an anti-gunnner I’ve heard all year.

  9. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I’m very much in support of National Reciprocity, as it effects me greatly. I first got my NYC permit in 1992 (it took 1 year and at the halfway point, I had an in person interview at police headquarters with an FBI rep in the room). About 5 years ago, I moved to Minnesota where I got my PTC. I had to give up my NYC permit. Then, my move there full time was delayed. So I spend half my time in Minneapolis and the other in NYC. If this passes I’ll be able to carry again while I’m here.

  10. avatar Manny A says:

    As a concerned ny resident and in light of terrorists using vehicles, l would argue in my home state (not ny)that ny drivers be required to notify a state that they are entering, say 24 hours in advance, by email and await confirmation before entering.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “… NYPD would try to require an out-of-state concealed carrier to sign in [or] register with the NYPD so we would have a record of who is legally carrying.”

    Why in the world would anyone even think of having visitors “sign-in” to the New York City police department for any reason, much less publish it?

    Furthermore, the idea itself is silly since licensed concealed carriers are already registered as legally armed with their home state — which any New York City police bureaucrat could verify with a one minute phone call.

    How any of that “makes sense” to gun grabbers and their Progressive ilk is beyond me. I think they really are bat-$hit crazy.

  12. avatar Docduracoat says:

    I agree with everything that has been said here
    I am a medical doctor and my home state medical board would take action if I were arrested for any gun law violation
    I cannot afford to lose my livelihood!
    So if NYC requires me to sign in when I brought my concealed weapon to the family reunion, then I would sign in
    Even though it is an affront and a violation, I would do it so I could bring my legally carried gun
    I have not gone to the family reunion in a few years because of California and N Y gun restrictions
    The last one I attended was here in Florida as we are gun friendly

  13. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    Next time I go to NYC I will stop by the closest NYPD station I can find to inform them I will be in their city and acting entirely within the confines of the law so they have a record of it.

    Stupid ass.

  14. avatar JJ48 says:

    “But the feds would argue that they did not ‘impose’ that cost.”

    And the feds would be correct. Nothing in the federal law would require NYC to make such a list, so that is entirely a voluntary cost, and any expenses fall full on the shoulders of NYC. One must assume the professor does not work with contracts, or he should probably know this.

  15. avatar Larry says:

    And in the rest of the state there are 1,250,000 permit holders who have to renew our pistol permits for the first time ever . With one month to,go only 250,000 have .

    Good luck,getting out of staters to comply , when the residents don’t .

  16. avatar Tori S says:

    They will do no such thing.

    They will nullify federal law. Plain and simple. They will ignore the federal law and arrest you if they find you have a gun without their permission. You’ll spend years in jail while waiting for the 9 unelected kings and queens of the supreme court of the US to hear your case. IF they hear your case.

    You’ll likely rot in jail with a felony conviction for 10 years. And when you get out, no state will let you have a gun again.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      We should all recognize:
      – concealed carry in states other than our residence requires intimate familiarity with ALL the gun laws in every state, city and town where we would travel (are we all intimately familiar with all the laws in our own states?)

      – there is no penalty for what we would call “malicious prosecution”; no cop or DA is ever fined or jailed for intentionally ignoring federal and state law when it comes to “sending a message” to targeted groups (“punishment by process”)

      Perhaps too many gun owners see reciprocity as an immunity from being hassled by local authority? Speculation: national reciprocity will not turn out to be much of an extension of freedom, after all.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .”

        42 U.S. Code § 1983

        We don’t have the votes for national reciprocity, but if we did, § 1983 could become a cottage industry for plaintiffs’ lawyers. Hell, I might even come out of retirement.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yes, yes. All very pretty.

          One can count on one hand the number of times authorities were punished personally for abuse of the law in situations where the intent was not to actually reach a verdict, but to harass the defendent into penury, or a nolo contendre.

          Think Mike Flynn and others.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          1983 cases have a bunch of hoops that make them much less effective than one would think.

          The sort of law in H.R. 38, that isn’t in the Senate Bill, would be a lot better.

  17. avatar Joe_thousandaire says:

    If this happens I’m going to NYC just to walk around carrying.

  18. avatar Hannibal says:

    Are they suggesting they would try and write that into the law? I think they’d find that while NYC can get away with that bullshit on a state level, they don’t have any pull to do it federally. It’s not like the NY senators are going to support the bill anyway, so there’s no reason to give them any concessions.

    Or are they suggesting that NYC try and impose some sort of additional state or local law requiring it? Sounds like the way they tried to ignore LEOSA and kept arresting people who qualified under that until they got sued enough to stop.

  19. avatar borg says:

    If national unlicensed open carry became law either by legislation or by supreme court ruling the result would force many people to openly carry in New York increasing pressure to make the licensing system a shall issue at a cheaper cost.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email