Skip Navigation
Conservative @sh.itjust.works MomoTimeToDie @sh.itjust.works

NYPD Granting Fewer Gun Permits After Supreme Court Ruled It Had To Grant More, Data Shows

www.thecity.nyc NYPD Granting Fewer Gun Permits After Supreme Court Ruled It Had To Grant More, Data Shows

A ghost gun hobbyist who’s fighting charges after building an arsenal in his apartment is hoping the data could help overturn some of the city’s remaining restrictions on guns possession.

NYPD Granting Fewer Gun Permits After Supreme Court Ruled It Had To Grant More, Data Shows

To the surprise of nobody, New York City continues to brazenly ignore the constitution. This raises the question, what should be done about corrupt politicians who's reaction to being struck down in court is to double down on their tyranny while directing all their propaganda outlets to try and delegitimize the constitution and the court?

8
8 comments

  • This is actually a really interesting article and I think downvotes are only reflecting disagreement with your flavor text.

    Here are a few things I read this morning as background:

    So anyway here's what's going on in the article as I read it:

    • This guy Dexter got his house searched and is out on bail for a 37-count indictment because he made a bunch of ghost guns. Looking at my first source up there, notice that ghost guns are illegal in NY generally. Also note that he never even tried to apply for a permit to have regular guns because he basically thought it was a waste of time and might be racist.

    • The political flair of the article is basically that the supreme court said in 2022 that one of the criteria for letting people have gun permits in NYC was unconstitutional: you don't need "proper cause" to get a gun. I agree, but I think this is a step past preemption law where we are bordering on legislating from the bench (second reference). The second thrust of the article is that NYC is not giving more permits this year despite relaxing the guidelines and having increased application.

    • The subtext here that is sort of glossed over is that the NYPD who approves the permits hasn't been outright REJECTING them, it just hasn't been approving them. I don't know of any legal support for forcing faster approval besides MAYBE the due process clause in the 5th / 14th amendments. Basically it says that the states have to work within a system of legal boundaries to get shit done, but it doesn't say it has to be fast.

    Bottom line is this guy is gonna go to jail and it has little to do with the big picture discussion IMO.

    To your flavor text I see three main points:

    1. NYC is ignoring the constitution
    2. What should happen to state legislators who flaunt the constitution?
    3. The delegitimization of the constitution and the court.

    So in response:

    1. NYC, Chicago, and other various states and municipalities are within their rights to ban guns. I don't like it, but it boils down to reference 4 where congress has to preempt that right of the states for regulation explicitly and has not done so. As a follow on, until 2008 Heller decision, 2A referred to states rights following the Miller decision, so it's sort of a new perspective and not a lot of election cycles to shore up. I kinda prefer the old way myself.

    2. As it happens, this is a super common thing. State legislators intentionally get together and make laws that are unconstitutional or go against supreme court decisions ALL the time. This is exactly what happened with the overturn of Roe. You kinda have to let them do this if you want half a chance of changing other things you might not like.

    3. This is a can of worms because the court is doing it to itself and the constitution is... well old. Since 45's appointees to the court, there has been a marked decrease in respect for judicial precedent or "stare decisis": basically whether or not decisions of the court will be consistent BETWEEN courts. This is not to mention the fact that all the nominees (perhaps with the exception of Gorsuch) were wildly controversial for behavior / training / history / etc. which is a pretty new thing. Generally SC justices enjoyed near unanimous confirmation, and no this is not a silly liberal thing: those 3 justices were pitched by the federalist society directly as being most impactful.

    With respect to the constitution, it is becoming increasingly less effective because language is changing over time and the writing is both specific and archaic. I think Jefferson had it right when he suggested that every generation (20 or so years) there should be constitutional revisions, but there really isn't a prayer of it happening because you'll never get agreement. If you asked the current gov what color the sky is, I still don't think you'd get 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate, and 3/4 of state legislatures to agree.

    Anyway, long, but here's the discussion you wanted I think :). Sorry the formatting is kinda weird but I don't know how to fix it and it's passable.

8 comments