New York and New Jersey are two of the eight states that have similar laws giving local authorities discretion to decide who receives gun permits.

Legal experts say a decision striking down or loosening those “proper cause” requirements will mean more concealed weapons in public places — especially concerning in densely populated areas.

“I think it would be a big mistake in urban areas to let this happen,” former NYPD Chief of Detectives and ABC News contributor Robert Boyce said. “It’s just too many people. Again, I’m a proponent of the Second Amendment, but everything has to be reasonable.”

— Sandra Bookman in ‘Be Very Afraid’: NYC Mayor Warns of Potential Supreme Court Gun Ruling on Concealed Carry in NY

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

60 COMMENTS

  1. ” I’m a proponent of the Second Amendment, but everything has to be reasonable”.
    Anytime someone says this they have stated a lie in one sentence.
    Second amendment says “Shall not be infringed”.

    • The man is two faced just like all politicians. When you get that high in the “chain of command”, you loose sight of something we call common sense.

    • The ENTIRE POINT of “…shall not be infringed.” was that the Founders understood that the government was the LAST entity that could be trusted with deciding what “reasonable limitations” should be.

      Hence “…shall not be infringed.” – NO limitations imposed by government.

      • That’s basically my point as well…even with “shall issue”, it’s still providing all your info and registering with GOV for permission, since GOV in “shall issue” States still require you to go through a BGC, provide your info, go through hoops, and pay a fee.

        Constitutional (Permitless) Carry nationwide is the way it should be.

        • still fill out paperwork and get checked out before you can buy a gunm. The 4473 is registration.
          The feds know I bought two gunms last month, what they dont know is I bought them for somebody else, ha ha. No really I lost both of them in the woods somewhere. The first one I’ve know idea but the second one I sent out to look for the first one and it’s never came back. I need a smarter gunm. I think all gunms should be equipped with a compass and a snorkel.

  2. So: “vote for me, I don’t trust any of you.”
    An interesting platform to run on.

    Why not? Nationally the (D)’s are running on: “the Earth would be better off without any of you on it.”

    Almost enough to think these people would willfully and intentionally disrupt your finances, security and food supply if they don’t trust you and envision a world without you. But that’s just crazy conspiracy talk. One might even think they’d be willing to poison you in great numbers. Sort of a grand scale Flowers in the Attic thing. Have you believing you deserve it and maybe mother Earth will be happier with you in the ground so it’ll be a worthy sacrifice.

    • Shire-man,

      A friend and I had a friendly debate with a mutual friend 20 years ago: we argued that the Far Left is more-or-less a death cult. We cited the Far Left encouraging/pushing hard for free-and-frequent abortions (killing babies in the womb), free and frequent post-birth abortions (killing babies after birth), physician assisted suicide, homosexual relationships (which carried a significant risk of death from AIDS and failed to produce the next generation), extensive use of hard narcotics (which ruin lives and often end in overdose), and even “no child” or “one child” initiatives which will cause a populace crash and fail to repopulate the planet.

      Our mutual friend refused to accept that all of those planks of the Far Left platform added up to a death cult.

      At this point I would simply point skeptics to the Georgia Guidestones which openly call for the world population to be capped at 500 million people.

      • More accurately, it’s an immortality cult. Having rejected the religious aspiration of life after death, they’ve replaced it with the secular aspiration of life without death, achieved by some imagined scientific miracle somewhere down the road. They’ve sense enough to realize, if only unconsciously, that a world with billions of immortals could never function.

        What value does life have to those who seek to live forever? Especially the lives of those who would stand in their way?

      • This is a problem why? 500 million is probably to small, but 7 Billion and climbing is at least three times too many. Let the hedonists remove themselves from the gene pool. The only other options are a) moving to another planet (not currently feasible and certainly not in large enough numbers) or another but even more massive world war that employs weapons of mass destruction.

    • They can’t really live without us. They want to milk the general populace for taxes, debts, and votes. They know they can’t just print money forever because devalues their billions.

      • Socialist largesse depends on the productive side of the population being chumps who keep feeding the beast.

    • “Almost enough to think these people would willfully and intentionally disrupt your finances, security and food supply if they don’t trust you and envision a world without you. But that’s just crazy conspiracy talk.”

      Disrupt my finances? As in lock me down for my own good during a pandemic?
      Disrupt my security? As in you don’t need firearms we are here to protect you.
      Disrupt my food supply? As in suspicious fires at food processing plants? Or baby formula shortages?
      I’m at the age where I may not have to battle these evil bastards from my front porch but my nieces and nephews may very well. I will happily pass my firearms to them and say a prayer to my good Lord please protect them.

    • “Nationally the (D)’s are running on: “the Earth would be better off without any of you on it.””

      Which makes them being all bent out of shape about 1,000,000 dead from the ‘Rona kinda curious.

      Which is it? Is every death from a virus a national tragedy, or does the planet have 3+ billion people too many?

      Think of the possibilities of a 50 percent death rate from the flu – The price of real estate will finally be reasonable, and traffic will be far less a pain… 🙂

      • “Which makes them being all bent out of shape about 1,000,000 dead from the ‘Rona kinda curious.”
        The left is not really concerned about the million or so deaths attributed to Covid, it is simply a talking point and something they attempt to blame on Trump and the Republicans.

  3. Why would ‘too many people’ negate your right to self defense? And how many people do you need to nullify the Constitution? I have questions.

    • There is a better question: What is unreasonable about law abiding citizens carrying firearms?

      The answer you will get is ALWAYS the same, and it is ALWAYS unsupported by anything other than a gut feeling: “More guns means there will be more gun crime.” It is the more sophisticated version of “It will be the Wild Wild West! There will be blood in the streets!” (Dr. Gary Wintemute and a few others have declared as much in support of restrictive CCW issuance policies in California.)

  4. I can’t think of anything better to happen to NYC and the rest of the state of NY than for a massive amount of residents to become concealed carriers AND for them ALL to carry on a regular daily basis. I hope the laws are changed sufficiently for that to happen with the less burdensome procedures comparable to pro 2A states. Same applies to NJ, MA, RI, MD, and CT up there in the same screwed-up area.

  5. There is a direct link between gun control laws and crime in NYC. They enact more draconian laws and crime goes up. Of course, there are other factors. Criminals released without posting bail comes to mind.

  6. So they are fine with the criminals carrying guns but not the ones who go through the permitting process? Sounds about right, we have a no guns sign at work being a Federal Facility. Got into it with one of those anti gunners at work. Asked him how exactly that sign prevents someone from bringing guns in. He did not have a reply. Same kind of logic that criminals won’t carry guns because they don’t have a permit. The disconnect with reality is strong with most.

    • Most of the time a facility will ban firearms because of accident rates and liability exposure. It doesn’t really have anything to do with criminals, it’s about negligent gun owners having an accidental discharge on company property.

      • Minor MINER49er Poppy cock. Those facilities that “ban” firearms do so because they want to create “gun free zones.” There are a host of companies that do so, one of which is Panera?
        As usual, you are trying to foster your anti-gun agenda trying to make banning guns “reasonable”.

        • Minor MINER49er So the insurance companies you cite are the ones objecting. These objections are to employees carrying. Not customers. Nice try. Leftist but your mouth wash isn’t cutting it again. You are depending on us not reading your garbage. You must think we are as stupid as you are.

        • Neither of those authors are actuaries or underwriters. Demberger is a content editor, and Thamann is a managing editor. In simpler terms for miner, they are both journalists, and the articles are speculative—a bunch of what-ifs. Which insurance company charges higher premiums if you don’t have a “no firearms” policy, that isn’t also some boutique leftist woke outfit?

          I remember when PNC, one of the local banks, tried to implement such a policy, corporate wide. They got a lot of heat from employees and customers, and soon all the signs just kinda disappeared. It was an early version of getting slapped for trying to implement a woke policy. My wife was one of their teller supervisors at the time.

          Question, miner. Have you ever owned a brick and mortar business, with employees and in person customers? If so, has your liability insurance agent ever told you the underwriter was concerned about armed employees and/or customers? I own such a business, and my insurance agent wants me to be armed, even in this quiet corner of the world. I had been negotiating with a second company, and that agent felt the same. The real world doesn’t match your line.

      • Minor, you really, honestly, don’t have any idea what your talking about, do you?

    • Because they think criminals have the same Lawful-Stupid alignment they have.

  7. If New York City is so crowded that normal citizens should not be allowed to carry guns, then the city is so crowded that the police should not be allowed to carry guns either.

    • Yep. I seem to recall several news stories that pointed out how often the NYPD blues perform mag dumps without hitting perps. I wonder if citizens have a better hit ratio?

      • hawkeye, Sure can’t be much worse. I heard a story told by my uncle who was a Captain in NYPD. A Detective Lt was in a bodega getting some food for dinner. In walks a perp with a .38 spc to rob the store. The Lt draws his S&W Chief Special and orders the perp to drop his gun. The perp turns and fires a round at the LT. The Lt returned fire firing five shots (a Chief Special only holds five rounds or .38 spc) He missed every shot in spite of firing expert on the range to qualify a short time before. Thankfully the perp became so scared, he dropped the gun and surrendered.

      • There was one where the responding NYPD officers actually did hit the perp–and nine other bystanders. The perp had run out of luck after being fired from a job, so he went and killed his old boss, and then committed suicide by cop. The cops were only too happy to oblige, although I don’t think the inured bystanders were all that happy.

  8. New England and leftist west coast politicians are never the sources to have any idea what “reasonable” means nor how that term functions. Currently they abuse this word as much as any other word/term that can be used to further gun rights.

  9. Blah, Blah, Blah. Only the Elites and Politically connected get to have the right to carry weapons. Our political enemies and the average person don’t deserve any rights, especially the poor and any black or brown folks.

    Same old tired arguments by the shills for state Tyranny. Best to ignore them and restore the rights of all Americans.

  11. Same old same old. Ya know ILLannoy had the same “problem”. Oceans of blood predicted from legions of legal concealed carriers. Didn’t happen in Murdertown USA. Or ILL. But POTG know that…

  12. Well given their level of increasing violence they ought to wake up and face the facts that it is their policies that cause the problem in the first place. In every state that has a make my day law or castle domain law home burglaries dropped dramatically once the law was passed. Common sense even for criminals is, if you break into a house where the owner can legally shoot you they are not going to risk it in most cases.

    • dprato,

      While I celebrate your sentiment, I doubt that reality matches your claim. Do you have vetted sources to support you claim that home invasions decrease after a state passes Castle Doctrine laws–and decrease because of the new Castle Doctrine law?

      I ask this because criminals’ minds often operate differently from “good people”. While you and I would reject the idea of breaking into an occupied home where the occupants are likely to be armed, many (most?) criminals dismiss the probability and proceed with their home invasion anyway.

      And therein lies the rub: people have an incredible capacity to dismiss very real facts. Otherwise, no one would smoke cigarettes and no one would engage in promiscuous $ex.

      • You are correct.

        I agree “many (most?) criminals dismiss the probability” of any sort of consequence for whatever crime they’re engaged in or contemplating.

        But that’s the flawed basis of the death penalty, the idea that it would deter any criminal is clearly proven wrong by experience.

        Add the number of times that the state, through incompetence or malice, has sentenced innocent people to death and no reasonable person can continue to support capital punishment.

        • The idea of the death penalty is two fold. 1) to act as a deterrence. Deterrence does not always work but for the vast majority of people it certainly does. and 2) do you know of any executed killer who ever did it again?

        • minor49IQ…Once again you have shown what an inexperienced pathetic pasty mouth pompous imbecile you are. When a murder case is cut and dry like most are and you provide cover for such murderers by using rare cases where an innocent was executed then your protective lips are on the behinds of individuals who clearly deserve to be put to death.

          You and your ilk tie the hands of justice. And one big reason citizens are arming up is because of criminal coddling jerks just like you. When a gun is pointed at a criminal it means death to them and they clearly understand that. And so by the same token the death penalty works like a gun pointed at a criminal…period.

        • Miner49er,

          I recognize that the death penalty fails to deter many (most?) criminals. I also recognize that governments have wrongfully administered the death penalty.

          And yet I refuse to, “throw out the baby with the bath water.”

          I still support the death penalty in cases where there is overwhelming incontrovertible evidence and the crime is absolutely indefensible. (One example of an absolutely indefensible crime is kidnapping, torturing, and murdering an innocent victim.)

        • “…and 2) do you know of any executed killer who ever did it again?”

          Far too many have been wrongly executed.

          What recourse do they have?

        • Minor MINER49er Not one of the cases you have cited was it proven that the executed was not guilty. I worked in the prisons for 25 yrs after serving 10 yrs as a police officer. I never met a convict who admitted he did it.

  13. People will figure it out just as they have in every other city with shall issue or permit less (or whatever you want to call it). I strongly doubt it will cause enough deaths to be anything but negligible compared to sentencing reform, raise the age, bail reform, or several other silly programs we run.

  14. “I think it would be a big mistake in urban areas to let this happen,” former NYPD Chief of Detectives and ABC News contributor Robert Boyce said. “It’s just too many people. Again, I’m a proponent of the Second Amendment, but everything has to be reasonable.”

    In a nutshell the former plantation detective is peeing on your back and telling you it’s raining. Make no mistake about it…Going unarmed to the store for a loaf of bread can get you injured or killed. Not just by a criminal with a gun but with anything a criminal can get their hands on, etc.

    The pompous Gun Control jackasses whose Gun Control agenda obviously supplies victims for murderous criminals want citizens to fall again for the Gun Control insanity they never stop selling. No Way Jose.

  15. This guy clearly prefers unarmed victims since dependant people always cling to to any source of even illusory safety, like the local PD. He likes his power and even the local prosecutor turning the bad guys loose increases his personal power.

  16. Just curious what part of “shall not be infringed” includes that the 2A must be “reasonable” (in the minds of gun-grabbing Leftist/fascist idiots)?? Given that Leftist/fascists are incapable of either rational thought or consistency, I am not surprised but I do find it AMUSING as hell that our resident Leftist/fascists, dacian the stupid and MajorStupidity have such . . . “flexible” views about the 2A, when they would BOTH scream like wounded cougars if the same “logical” approach were applied to the 1A, or voting rights, or the right to counsel. Why do Leftist/fascist idiots have to be such complete hypocrites????

  17. “It’s just too many people. Again, I’m a proponent of the Second Amendment, but everything has to be reasonable.”

    GFY Boyce You stupid bitch.

  18. The rich, criminal or law-abiding, have always had guns in New York state. Even after the passage of the Sullivan laws. And if even more strict gun laws are passed. The rich, criminal or law-abiding, will still have access to guns.

    Criminals are very patient people. They will simply spend whatever time necessary to make a plan and gather (mail order) all the parts necessary to build their own guns.

  19. So the former detective is telling us yankees and city dwellers cannot be trusted with guns, the constitution notwithstanding. I can see why he’s a mainstream news consultant.

  20. False.
    Nothing has to be reasonable.
    Example: millions of publicly educated liberals who don’t understand a four word clause “Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.”.
    Not rocket science, not collegiate level English, not brain surgery.

  21. Well of course Sandra Bookman, she a member of the dysfunctional 13% percent of our population who appear predisposed to commiting violent crime, would pen such a fact-free and blatant piece of anti-gun propaganda, she’s been a top Fake Newser at Channel 7 WABC-TV “news” in NYC for decades. Bookman is married to celebrity chef Savio Oppio, they live in a ritzy high-rise “doooor-maaan” building in the Rotten Apple and are chaufered to work every day by livery car driven by an armed retired NYPD officer.

Comments are closed.