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

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

Dan Zimmerman - comments No comments

“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

0 thoughts on “New Yorkers’ Fever Dreams of Concealed Carry Reciprocity: IMI Systems Quote of the Day”

  1. 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.

    Reply
  2. 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.

    Reply
  3. 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.

    Reply
    • 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.

      Reply
      • 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.

        Reply
        • 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.

          Reply
  4. Here’s another thought…
    If the 2A is absolute (doesn’t just apply to the law-abiding – it doesn’t say that, right?), then any prisoner in prison has the right to be armed.
    That’s what we need – the likes of Charles Manson with a .45 in prison.
    My point remains, unless you think that is right.

    All of your arguments about the 1A’s freedom of speech fail because you all bring up ways in which the 1A is abridged in laws that you agree with, whether by prior restraint or by prosecution after the fact.
    Unless you agree with arming everyone, no matter whether violent, in prison, or violently insane, then you agree with me in that the 2A right to keep and bear is not absolute.

    Reply
  5. 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.

    Reply
  6. 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.

    Reply
  7. About time. It was horrible visiting South Carolina this summer and being constantly assaulted with faux-automatic fire. You’d never see it, but you could hear the bullets humming all around you, sounding for all the world like mosquitos. Occasionally you’d discover some had hit you and left little, itchy welts all over exposed skin (they never penetrated much; must have been .9mm). It’s good to know someone’s finally addressing the issue.

    Reply
  8. I want to see the impact test on both a Glock 43 and the m&p shield. I bet they will pass, but good to show honor guard their deficit.

    Reply
  9. If their sales numbers drop, then they’ll get the message that they need to “adjust” their response. You don’t stay in this business that long with that kind of customer service. Money talks

    Reply
  10. Struggling not to jump into all of the possible humorous rabbit holes this one can create, this can be a serious question to answer. I have never felt as though I had enough stock, ever. Our household buys about 40,000 rounds (.22 included) every quarter just to use at the range. We have a stockpile of “GO” ammo. We have a stockpile of hunting ammo. And we have a stockpile of SHTF ammo. And yet, that never seems to be enough.

    Reply
  11. I move every two years so I can’t keep a good stock. I use a steel folding footlocker with small plastic ammo cans inside to keep inside all organized. I have a few of the Ammo crates that sit on top of the cabinet. They seem to hold quite a bit of ammo. I have parts kits in about five other crates. Once those various guns are built, I’ll switch them over to ammo.

    Reply
  12. “The truth of the matter is that all firearms will discharge if handled abusively…”

    Utter horseshit or, at very best, intellectually dishonest on a grand scale. There are plenty of guns that do not fire when dropped at any angle from chest-height, and that’s what we’re talking here. We’re NOT talking about taking a blowtorch to the safety mechanism and drilling holes in stuff. We’re talking about dropping the damn thing. This guy sounds like car company mouthpieces when they learn that their fuel tanks explode in a collision but before they start the recall. “The truth of the matter is that all cars will explode if…” NO.

    $$$ over lives, just what we need from a company manufacturing items we’re supposed to depend on to save ours.

    Reply

Leave a Comment