Supreme Court Hears NY Gun Case

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case Wednesday on New York City's gun permit law.

[JakeSDN]

This was grossly misreported in this video. The case is about people without a criminal record being able to get a carry permit. Once the person sued the NYPD issued the permit, but denied it before despite the person not having a criminal record, stating that the person did not have an adequate reason for having it.

[Kenjie]

It will still be a normal day for joggers

[gootjuicehotsauce]

I have a felony for grand larceny 15 years ago. I'm not allowed to carry a firearm under NYS Law. I carry one anyway, because it's better to be tried be 12 than carried by 6. I'm prepared for joggers at all times. Also, I'd love to see some soy-fed millennial cop try to take it from me.👊🏻

[tsafa]

The meaning of the Second Amendment

Right to Bear Arms.... not NEED
Arms = Ordinary Military Equipment 
Bear= Carry
Militia = Not enlisted, not contracted armed citizens
Regulated = In good working order. As in well regulated clock.
Shall not be infringed = No Restrictions

[This_Old_Man_]

We don't need a license to exercise freedom of speech so why should we need a license to open or concealed carry. There should only be laws that prohibit carry in sensitive locations like schools, Court houses etc, and there should be very few of those places.

[Mgreen]

The wording he uses. Stop you can't carry anywhere if your not police super rich, or moving the rich people's money around.

[JMBAmericanIronShallNotBeInfri]

This last Wednesday our Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark case on our right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense. One of the reasons given by the three liberal leaning justices in defense of New York’s permitting scheme is that guns are more dangerous in crowds and that within our large cities because of the very fact that so many people are around all the time as well as law enforcement, people don't need to carry a firearm for self-defence. Well it would seem that by the very nature of the term "High Crime Area" that obviously this premise is wrong.

But here is one recent real world example of their theory not working.

Raped on a train:

For more than 40 minutes, a woman was harassed by a stranger on a public transit train in Philadelphia and then raped while bystanders held up their cell phones, seemingly to record the assault, while no one called 911 police said.

Your fellow human beings folks. Not only did they fail to help this woman, they had such a lack of empathy for her, they could pull their phones out to record the attack for future social media postings! More than two dozen train stops passed as the man harassed, groped and eventually raped the woman, the police chief for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority said at a news conference Monday.

I'll say it again, unfortunately people are afraid to realize that the idea of being safe is an illusion in society. The reality is, to put it in the simplest terms, you're safe as long as the person standing next to you doesn't decide to kill you. That's not paranoia it's just an obvious fact.

You know what would have empowered this poor woman to stop her stronger, bigger, male attacker??? A firearm, it would have made his choice to assault her because of his perceived power over her a bad choice. And hopefully he'd never be assaulting and raping any other women again!

Just sayin...

[hawaiiagentfivo]

Matter gona get offend cux they cant violates other rights to feed their family

[vietnamvet]

Ha ha ha, don’t make me laugh
The bad guys are laughing, what a joke