{"id":82953,"date":"2022-07-01T09:58:55","date_gmt":"2022-07-01T14:58:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=82953"},"modified":"2022-07-01T10:09:27","modified_gmt":"2022-07-01T15:09:27","slug":"82953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=82953","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Justice Thomas referenced such shenanigans in the Bruen decision itself.
\nTo be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for
\nhistorical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to \u201clongstanding\u201d \u201claws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings\u201d to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents\u2019 attempt to characterize New York\u2019s proper-cause requirement as a \u201csensitive-place\u201d law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a \u201csensitive place\u201d simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

and (at the end of footnote 9)
\n….because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes<\/strong> where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

May just be me, but I read that as Justice Thomas slyly daring New York, and other states, to enact crap-for-brains laws like this.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Permits would, among other things, require four references and "a list of current and former social media accounts" from the last three years: pic.twitter.com\/1LrOldhos5<\/a><\/p>\n

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) July 1, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n