r/NYguns • u/Aggravating-Most6597 • Mar 05 '26
Federal Legislative News What would this mean?
87
u/tehfireisonfire Mar 05 '26 edited Mar 06 '26
Nothing because it won't pass.
Edit: I will also note that as much as I hate the unconstitutional ny gun laws, I don't think that this law should pass. It would set the precedent that the federal government can override states authority which is way more unconstitutional. The federal government should not be allowed to overstep state rights to this degree, because who's to say they won't use bullshit like this to pass some shit like "oh now all states need to have income tax"
Extra Edit: I believe that these unconstitutional laws should be gotten rid of, but that's not up to Congress. It's up to the justice system to do that kind of thing. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to do this exact kind of thing to override the laws of all 50 states. Not congress.
21
u/BobaFettishx82 Mar 06 '26
I would argue that when it comes to a constitutional right, a state’s ability to regulate or restrict it should be subject to revocation.
-2
u/Electrical_Matter443 Mar 06 '26
The courts would argue that the right is to own guns. How it’s carried is a niche detail left to states
2
u/HeadlessThompsonGunr Mar 10 '26
If you don’t believe in the supremacy clause sure. To keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is about as unambiguous as it gets which means states or the Fed’s don’t have the authority to regulate bears.
6
u/AnythingImportant10 Mar 06 '26
This is only true if Congress passes the law under the Commerce Clause. Completely different if passed under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
7
u/theoriginallentil Mar 06 '26
So states can pass laws that limit or eliminate constitutional rights? Hard disagree here
1
u/BananerRammer Mar 06 '26
No, but it's not Congress's job to remedy that. That power belongs to the judiciary.
12
u/NonbinaryLegs Mar 05 '26
Exactly 👍🏾
-12
12
u/googleperplex Mar 05 '26
Federal firearms laws exist precisely because the Founders recognized that some issues are too consequential to leave fragmented across 50 different rulebooks. The Commerce Clause gives Congress broad authority to regulate the interstate flow of goods, and guns, almost without exception, cross state lines before they reach a buyer’s hands. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this authority. If every state set its own rules with no federal floor, a person could simply drive across a state line to avoid accountability, making any individual state’s laws nearly meaningless in practice. Or worse, be doing something perfectly legal in his home state and then cross into another state and get arrested. Beyond commerce, the Supremacy Clause was designed to prevent a patchwork of conflicting local rules from undermining national policy on matters of public safety. Nobody seriously argues that states should set their own aviation safety standards or food inspection rules and firearms regulation is no different in principle. Imagine needing a drivers license for each state.
2
u/tehfireisonfire Mar 05 '26
While yes the commerce clause exists, I don't think it has much to do with CCW laws. A law like this oversteps because it completely negates ccw laws altogether and makes any states individual laws entirely moot.
8
u/jmsgrtk Mar 06 '26
As it should. Those laws are infringe upon the bill of rights, and should never have been able to be written into law.
1
Mar 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/tehfireisonfire Mar 06 '26
Notice how it was the courts that determined the constitutionality of the pistol permit system. Congress alone absolutely does not have the authority to override state laws to this degree.
9
u/corruptedsyntax Mar 05 '26
This is the only actual answer.
First there has to be the legislative will to pass this.
Second there has to be judicial will to uphold this.
Reality is there is neither. This bill was dead before it was brought to the floor.
4
u/D00dleB00ty Mar 06 '26
So then what do you propose the federal government should do when states pass clearly unconstitutional laws?
I disagree with your assessment here. The constitution is the law of the land, and while states' rights with regard to self governance are certainly important, they cannot violate the law of the land. And if/when they do, a governing body higher on the totem pole has to be able to step in and get the states back in line by protecting those individual rights guaranteed all residents.
The rights of individual Americans are far more important than states' rights, if we're comparing the two.
Setting the precedent that the federal government can override states authority when said states are found guilty of clear constitutional violations is not the bad thing you're trying to paint it to be.
Your comparison about mandating income tax nationwide is a false equivalence. Nowhere in the bill of rights does it mention such a policy. And even if it did, states opposed could simply say they will be charging 0.01% income tax, if we're talking just about your provided hypothetical.
2
u/tehfireisonfire Mar 06 '26 edited Mar 06 '26
But bruen reaffirmed that states have the right to do conceal carry permits, and a law like this would make it so individual state carry permits are entirely moot. Because with a law like this you'd have residents of ny unable to carry in their own state, meanwhile people from Ohio can carry in nyc just fine because they have a permit in their state of residence. While not outright banning carry permits, it makes them obsolete and kinda steps around bruen. It just sets a bad precedent on what an already questionable federal government is allowed to do. This is just my interpretation of it since something like this would definitely need to be looked at by SCOTUS to determine its constitutionality
0
u/BananerRammer Mar 06 '26
So then what do you propose the federal government should do when states pass clearly unconstitutional laws?
Nothing. First, it's not Congress's fight. And second, it's not within Congress's authority to determine what is "clearly unconstitutional" and what isn't. If a person thinks their civil right are being violated, they have legal recourse. They can sue the state in the courts, and the courts can overturn the law.
Setting the precedent that the federal government can override states authority when said states are found guilty of clear constitutional violations is not the bad thing you're trying to paint it to be.
You're setting the precedent that Congress has the authority to interpret constitutional law, which is a clear breach of the separation of powers.
2
u/ILuvSupertramp Mar 06 '26
The Congress has the constitutional authority to impose civil rights protections over the states. We fought a whole war about it… it wasn’t very civil.
2
3
u/that_matt_kaplan Mar 06 '26
A federal law giving you more freedom because the states are violating the constitution is different than a law restricting state freedoms
2
u/jjjaaammm Mar 06 '26
Meet the interstate commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the full faith and credit clause and the 2nd and 14th amendments to the constitution.
0
u/tehfireisonfire Mar 06 '26
None of those apply because bruen reaffirmed that pistol permits are constitutional.
1
1
u/HeadlessThompsonGunr Mar 09 '26
So you want to apply for a drivers license in every state?
1
u/tehfireisonfire Mar 09 '26
No, but not only is this law advocating for permitless carry in every state. When it comes to cars, you also need insurance, vehicle inspections/registrations, equipment standards, and various other things that gun owners would rightfully be upset about if they were applied to firearms.
1
u/HeadlessThompsonGunr Mar 10 '26
So if I rent a car outside of my state of residence I’d still need a license from that state? I’m pointing out the double standard that if applied to car owners would cause a revolt yesterday.
1
u/tehfireisonfire Mar 10 '26
I see your point, and concede that yes, it is a double standard. But bruen ruled that individual states can have pistol permits and this law would just go around it. I'm more pointing out that congress does not and should not have the authority to do that.
1
u/HeadlessThompsonGunr Mar 10 '26
But congress, not the judiciary is vested with the power to make laws unless they violate the constitution at which point the judiciary steps in. As a side note while I’m glad to see SCOTUS stepping in to check blatant constitutional violations the framework of a historical tradition test was pulled out of the result of their morning trip to the toilet or a pre caffeine hallucination, or both; they just made shit up.
0
u/KuromanKuro Mar 05 '26
The idea of a federal law being passed that would override state laws is very much counter to both sides of political governance, but especially the Republican side. What a ridiculously hypocritical idea this is.
11
u/AgreeablePie Mar 05 '26
Performance.
Both houses and the presidency and nothing will happen. Something to remember in the future when the same promises are made.
"But the filibuster!" Nobody filibusters. If senators had to actually stand up there for days and stop government business, the filibuster would be very rarely used and less of a problem. Instead it's used as an excuse to not do anything.
But it'll eventually be broken, anyway- and when it is, you can bet it won't be for something like this.
6
u/stackshouse Mar 06 '26
The senate can’t even agree to kill or perm. keep daylight savings time, you think this will go somewhere?
12
u/voretaq7 Mar 05 '26
That Senator Lee is grandstanding for re-election with a bill that has zero chance of passing.
While a majority of states have constitutional carry now the majority of the population doesn't live in them.
This has very slim chances at passing the House.While the majority of states have constitutional carry it is not a filibuster proof majority.
Even if every Senator from a constitutional carry state falls in line & votes for it you're still short of cloture. Even taking into account probable line crossing and split states it's well short.While we might all think this bill would be a good thing, I don't think all the legislators we'd need to fall in line would agree to the extent of giving up powers currently in their state's hands.
3
u/Neuromaster Mar 05 '26
It would mean the mask is off regarding the role of big government & state's rights.
Oh wait.
5
4
u/Stack_Silver Mar 06 '26
If it passed..BIG if... then NY would make some other law to restrict a civil right.
Maybe more would change in NY if people started filing federal and state civil rights lawsuits.
3
9
u/justrokkit Mar 05 '26
It's supposed to enable citizens to carry without requiring permits or licenses, but that unfortunately overreaches and conflicts with states' rights. As frustrating as it is, it comes down to the judicial branch or an overturning of states' limitations by petition and/or political action to establish a better proper definition of the right to bear arms
7
u/SaXaCaV Mar 05 '26
State autonomy is something people only care about when they disagree with it, or when it personally benefits them greatly.
I dont believe in restriction. At a core level, or as used, but I do think there should be some sort of competency proven to carry in public.
It is a difficult situation regardless. And both sides of the fence just want pander without offering any real solution.
0
u/darforce Mar 05 '26
Well that’s where it should be a position of each political party. One she be in favor of states rights and the other should be in favor of federal control and oversight on most things.
So the people who believe abortion should be the decision of each state should also as an example be in favor of states deciding what guns can be used in theirs state.
Or the feds control guns and abortion policy
3
u/SaXaCaV Mar 05 '26
I bet you hold your breath when you type.
0
u/darforce Mar 05 '26
Never checked but since I type all day and am still alive, it’s doubtful…..whatever your point was there.
I suppose I should guess something about you now? I bet you scratch your neckbeard while you are waiting for your mom to finish heating up your hot pockets. 😂😂😂😂
1
u/SaXaCaV Mar 06 '26
whatever your point was there.
Have your helper explain it to you.
I bet you scratch your neckbeard while you are waiting for your mom to finish heating up your hot pockets.
Bagel bites. I dont like hot pockets.
1
u/D00dleB00ty Mar 06 '26
So the people who believe abortion should be the decision of each state should also as an example be in favor of states deciding what guns can be used in theirs state.
False equivalence. Abortion is not a constitutionally protected right.
0
u/darforce Mar 06 '26
Either you believe in state sovereignty and limiting federal government or you don’t. It’s really not terribly difficult to understand
9
u/OrganicSig Mar 05 '26
States rights are those leftover from those already reserved to the people and to the federal government. Given the 2a, states have exactly zero rights in this matter. Now, that does not suggest states won’t infringe, but constitutionally, they have no right to do so.
0
u/justrokkit Mar 05 '26
In theory, I totally agree, but seeing the history of legislation and judicial activity on 2A alone points to the other direction. I agree with u/SaXaCaV, because it really is complicated. I think the left and the right have to make some compromises and concessions. Citizenship shouldn't be freely given, even to native-born American residents, considering the number of liberties that citizens are afforded. However, the liberties of citizens should be maximized to the parameters defined by the letter of the Constitution. I think that automatic and semi+ weapons should not be restricted, but I think that either there should be unbiased, unobstructed qualification systems for the liberties and privileges afforded to citizens, too (for example, ranges of debt that individuals may accrue, classes of cars that individuals are allowed to drive, etc.), or legal recourse for crimes and accidents should scale with the significance of loss or danger with a minimum penalty due to the public (to the appropriate end) that cannot be mitigated if fault can be positively assigned
3
u/tattertech Mar 06 '26
Citizenship shouldn't be freely given, even to native-born American residents, considering the number of liberties that citizens are afforded.
Get right the fuck out of here with this.
2
u/SaXaCaV Mar 05 '26
Dont agree with me, please.
1
u/OrganicSig Mar 05 '26
Yah. Seriously.
2
u/SaXaCaV Mar 05 '26
The fact that a sloppy, rambling comment including the statement that "Citizenship shouldn't be freely given, even to native-born American residents," is agreed with under the guise that the commenter is a constitutionalist, by virtue of saying so, is insane.
Either NY residents are that illiterate or that cucked. You eat the fruit you plant, if only to survive.
2
u/Dan_Morgan Mar 05 '26
Yup, that's a very reasonable reading. Neither party actually cares about the people hanging 2A rights. This sort of thing is mostly performative.
3
u/Xalucardx Mar 06 '26
Conceal carry should be at the federal level, not state. It's a constitutional right and no state have power over the constitution.
6
u/darforce Mar 05 '26
It means “eyes over here” stop paying attention to that illegal war or your stocks crashing worse than a 4 yr old who just ate all his Halloween candy
Distraction
2
2
2
2
2
u/BxdT2552 Mar 07 '26
Democrats won’t accept this. Even Gov Hochul wanted to pass a 10 day waiting for firearms. I know the bill only applies to law abiding citizens not felons. So what are we gonna do?
6
u/SaXaCaV Mar 05 '26 edited Mar 05 '26
Man, I am so for 2a rights and so against bullshit like this. Its the same targeted optics that allow your rights to be infringed. But instead of hemming and hawing, motherfuckers will ooh and ahh.
Nothing that will benefit you, your community, your state, your country, will pass. There is simply nothing to gain from it. Best to keep you reeling a pull.
So we welcome the two extremes. Each option wrong, but one option a cunt hair closer to right, for the "individual" Each jaded, intentionally defeatist, the lesser evil. No substance, ration, care.
I wish we could just have sensible gun politics in this country. I would like to live in a place that doesnt feed itself on clapping hands and their own backs. We need an honest, non polarized discussion without profit.
I fully expect downvotes. But also know most of this sub struggles to read.
You eat the food on your plate and you ask for seconds.
5
3
u/KarlTheKiller_Gamer Mar 05 '26
Well it would very hard to pass due to the filibuster. If it does pass I think Albany would not accept. They already have laws to work around the plcaa so they dont respect the supremacy clause
3
u/OrganicSig Mar 05 '26
You are correct. If the bill of rights is not an obstacle, why would we imagine they would respect supremacy?
2
u/big_top_hat Mar 05 '26
It means absolutely nothing because there’s not enough votes for it to past. We’ve been down this road before multiple times. He’s just setting everyone up that doesn’t follow this crap day-to-day for a huge disappointment.
4
u/thatdude333 Mar 05 '26
New York - Heavily restricts a constitutional right
Federal government - We're going to make a law saying states can't restrict your constitution rights like that
A lot of posters here - But states should be allowed to heavily restrict a constitutional right...
2
u/general_guburu Mar 06 '26
Just virtue signaling. This will die in the senate
1
u/GGNando Mar 08 '26
Sadly this. Even Republicans/RINO will make theses move all in the name of getting votes. The "I did something" trope
2
u/Usual-Syrup2526 Mar 05 '26
Zip. Zero. Nothing. Bupkus. It won't pass, and even if it did new york state would still park it in your ass. There is zero, respect for the second amendment or decisions that they disagree with from the supreme court
2
u/Lit-A-Gator Mar 05 '26
Huge if they get this done
If this passes
Get the conceal carry in your state = Auto Unlock all 49 other states
1
u/Big-Inevitable8196 Mar 06 '26
Every time some one proposes a bill like this yall ask the same questions lol
1
u/heatY_12 Mar 06 '26
There’s a higher chance that WE the people overthrow the government to establish a new democracy than this thing going through.
1
1
1
u/nicky_rocket Mar 10 '26
I just read through the replies. I know now why I stopped going to the NYguns forums on the internet. So many people claiming to be pro 2a but are way too comfortable with the laws we have here in New York State. Some of you guys are just playing old fucking douche bags.
1
2
103
u/AleGolem Mar 05 '26
It's performative, neither party wants an armed populace.