New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Most parking lots at Walmart stores are considered private property what does this mean with the new laws?

Will ALL parking lots at ALL retail stores, gas stations and convenience stores be considered “sensitive places” unless there are conspicuous signs allowing firearms ?

265.01-d Criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location. 27 1. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a 28 restricted location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle, or 29 shotgun and
enters into or remains on or in private property where such person knows or reasonably should know that the owner or lessee of such property has not permitted such possession by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted or has otherwise given express consent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I am talking about how the NEW law will make CCW impossible.
It says that you MUST BE INVITED with a sign in order to not only go into ANY store but also just to PARK in their lot.
NOTHING TO DO WITH WALMART
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Yep, the new laws - unless challenged and done quickly, will make permits useless in NYS. All the folks who are jumping up and down about removing restrictions - so what. Everything is banned as far as I can see. The decision is a theoretical victory and folks praise Clarence's prose as wonderful. Perhaps some states are changing rules but major states like NYS and CA will be on the offensive with carry restrictions that make the permits useless.

Whether one can get a lower court or Scotus to declare the entire package unconstitutional is an unknown? They might let the opt in survive (which destroys carry as conservative justices get all hot and bothered about property rights for other social issues implications). Basically, Scotus was out thought. They leave loop holes for bans and weapons types based on sensitive places and dangerous weapons with ill defined cliches. Don't ban Manhattan - how clever - just ban ever business in Manhattan.

As far as I WON'T DO BUSINESS, HUFF AND PUFF!! Well, there won't be alternatives, do you think the hundreds of thousands of businesses are going to put up pro gun signs on 9/1. Fat chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
That is because Scotus did not think through the states' counter punches. If they were truly concerned or understood day to day practical carry, this should have happened. The justices or really their clerks don't get it. How many are from gun culture or actually carried guns? I'd bet very few of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
That is because Scotus did not think through the states' counter punches. If they were truly concerned or understood day to day practical carry, this should have happened. The justices or really their clerks don't get it. How many are from gun culture or actually carried guns? I'd bet very few of them.
Imagine how much better this world would be if those making laws understood what they were legislating about..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
I understand that rights can in some cases be restricted or limited. Private property rights can override Second Amendment rights if the property owner wants it that way. What I don't understand is how the restriction can legally be considered the default, i.e. that property rights always override Second Amendment rights unless the property owner doesn't want them to. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't pass the Constitutional smell test. IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Look at the state reply to the GOA counter suit, that is cited here in one of the other threads. They have quite the historical and Constitutional argument that opt in is perfectly acceptable on those grounds. Of course as gun folks we think it isn't. Of course as anti, they think it is .

Property rights are the killer of carry. I fail to see why gun folks buy into property rights in businesses open to the public override the right to protect your life. That is pure nonsense. Business accept that they don't have the right to discriminate against protected classes. Maybe the property rights folks want to go back to those discriminatory days? I suspect some on Scotus want to.

Businesses accept all kinds of restrictions - health, zoning, fire, safety, pollution, etc. That's to stay in business. So where's the uproar on those?

From the beginning of the shall issue movement (and I remember this), the antis deliberately planned to use sensitive places (with emotional or religious rationales) plus property rights (convincing businesses to ban based on liability or ideology) to make carry useless. It was an explicit strategy. Unfortunately gun folks were blinded by MUH PROPERTY RIGHTZ and fell into and continue to fall into that trap.

Anyway we are screwed for a long time. The decision was a great victory as some other state removed that restriction from their laws. However, NYS and CA are moving to abolish useful carry and NJ might. You will have an easier road to an useless permit.

The operation was a success but the patient died.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Since the inside of your car is considered private property, I wonder if a good lawyer could argue that the car may be on the business' private property, but the firearm is in your own private property, and wouldn't technically be on "their" private property unless you removed it from the vehicle in their lot :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Look at the state reply to the GOA counter suit, that is cited here in one of the other threads. They have quite the historical and Constitutional argument that opt in is perfectly acceptable on those grounds. Of course as gun folks we think it isn't. Of course as anti, they think it is .
I did look at that -- I just tried to go back and look again, but I couldn't find it. Do you remember what thread it was in?

Anyway, on my first reading I thought that their case was compelling that property rights could take precedence, but not that carry rights should be opt-in. I'd like to look again at what their rationale was there.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top