SCOTUS doesnt take the case. regarding new york law regarding a good moral character to carry a handgun.
The Supreme Court declined Monday to decide whether a New York law that requires residents to have “good moral character” to carry a handgun is constitutional, leaving in place most of the state’s ban on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” such...
The Supreme Court declined Monday to decide whether a New York law that requires residents to have “good moral character” to carry a handgun is constitutional, leaving in place most of the state’s ban on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” such as schools, parks and theaters.
win for common sense gun laws.
about time that citizens character should be taken in consideration
Alla
Smyrna
April 12, 2025, 5:51pm
2
Isn’t is ironic that our corrupt government would be the ones to determine…“good moral character”? I think the deciding judge for this should be former NY governor Cuomo who purposefully or absolutely ignorantly put COVID infected patients in nursing homes that killed 10s of thousands. Would he be qualified to carry a gun by NY standards?
2 Likes
Maybe good moral character requirements for voting will be next.
7 Likes
Who determines “good moral character?” The ■■■■■■■ cops? You think most of them have good moral character?
8 Likes
Thugs and outlaws will carry where ever they wish.
This only restricts the law abiding.
Plus NY politicians are among the last in the world to decide good moral character!
People Like Gov Hochel and the Fat A district attorneys.
James and Bragg.
9 Likes
Guvnah
April 12, 2025, 7:12pm
6
John Adams said essentially the same thing about our entire Constitution. And that it’s “wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.
It’s why we now need laws to define laws to limit other laws to create exceptions to laws to specify other laws…
We are no longer a moral society. People need government to tell them right from wrong.
3 Likes
biggestal99:
SCOTUS doesnt take the case. regarding new york law regarding a good moral character to carry a handgun.
Supreme Court leaves New York law requiring ‘good moral character’ to carry handguns in place
The Supreme Court declined Monday to decide whether a New York law that requires residents to have “good moral character” to carry a handgun is constitutional, leaving in place most of the state’s ban on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” such as schools, parks and theaters.
win for common sense gun laws.
about time that citizens character should be taken in consideration
Alla
Do you seriously believe that someone intent on causing panic and harm give two ■■■■■ about ANY gun law prohibiting a gun anywhere!?!?!
8 Likes
No. They just go down the corner and ask for a guy named Pookie. And get a hot Glock for 100 bucks.
3 Likes
Yep, well NOT sure he would be called “pookie” though…LMAO
2 Likes
It’s like the old bumper sticker used to say.
When Guns Are Outlawed ONLY Outlaws Will Have Guns.
Woke libs are so gullible as to believe an outlaw cares about gun laws.
3 Likes
WuWei
April 13, 2025, 12:22pm
11
Only people of good moral character are allowed to vote.
Only people of good moral character are allowed to pray.
Only people of good moral character are allowed to talk in public.
Only people of good moral character are allowed to be secure in the persons, property and papers.
Only people of good moral character are allowed to not incriminate themselves.
Only people of good moral character are allowed to publish blogs.
5 Likes
It surprises me that they did not take this up.
I wonder if they didn’t want to revisit the sensitive areas question, and not ‘good moral character’.
SCOTUS is as gullible as woke libs, right?
or maybe they figured New York law was a constitutionally valid use of states rights.
Allan
now that i think about it, perhaps you are on to something there.
Allan
WuWei
April 13, 2025, 3:42pm
15
Supreme_War_Pig:
It surprises me that they did not take this up.
I wonder if they didn’t want to revisit the sensitive areas question, and not ‘good moral character’.
Partly. And partly they’re probably waiting for a better case.
Most of the SCOTUS, like the rest of government, doesn’t like an armed populace.
The 2nd A is a freakin’ problem for government at every level.
3 Likes
“such as schools, parks and theaters”
Ironically you just named the places guns are most likely to be needed to protect one’s self from deranged liberal teens with mommy issues.
3 Likes
WuWei
April 13, 2025, 4:09pm
17
Steel-W0LF:
“such as schools, parks and theaters”
Ironically you just named the places guns are most likely to be needed to protect one’s self from deranged liberal teens with mommy issues.
That’s any gun free zone. If they changed “schools, parks and theaters” to libraries, churches and plant nurseries" guess what would happen.
Steel-W0LF:
“such as schools, parks and theaters”
Ironically you just named the places guns are most likely to be needed to protect one’s self from deranged liberal teens with mommy issues.
I think the court believes, and rightly, so that their work place is a sensitive place. It is certainly a position of self interest. The thing is, Bruen carved out sensitive places, but did not list or define them.
WuWei
April 13, 2025, 6:28pm
19
They are scared of it just like all the rest of government.
The SCOTUS is not a “sensitive place.”
Now divorce court or family court, different.
the latest mass murder in new york happen in a grocery store in Buffalo.
and it was a white racist who killed black people.
Allan
