Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fbtcu1998 t1_irbrj5e wrote

Reply to comment by TheSavageDonut in Federal judge halts key parts of New York's new gun law by preppythugg

This issue with the law is it creates a purely subjective measure in reviewing social media accounts before allowing someone to exercise a right. Sure, it would be nice if was just used to stop mass shooters. But one could just as easily decide you're not of "good moral character" because you are a Mets fan and not a Yankees fan, you're a Democrat instead of Republican, you disagree with a mayor's policy, you talk about smoking weed, you claim you once had an abortion, you prefer chocolate to vanilla, whatever that person finds immoral. Subjective criteria to exercise a right is never a good idea.

The states can set whatever reasonable objective criteria they want...training requirement, BG check, etc. Once that objective criteria is met, they issue the permit.
What they can't do is let one person, in their own judgement, decide who is worthy despite the objective criteria being met.

25

Sparroew t1_iriywhi wrote

Well, that is one issue with the law. There was a separate issue in that New York allowed concealed carry and then made practically the entire state a gun-free zone, rendering that permit a very expensive and useless piece of paper.

1

TheSavageDonut t1_irbs520 wrote

>Sure, it would be nice if was just used to stop mass shooters.

It's meant to do just that.

>But one could just as easily decide you're not of "good moral character" because you are a Mets fan and not a Yankees fan, you're a Democrat instead of Republican, you disagree with a mayor's policy, you talk about smoking weed, you claim you once had an abortion, you prefer chocolate to vanilla, whatever that person finds immoral. Subjective criteria to exercise a right is never a good idea.

This is just fear disguised as innocent concern.

We already have the Patriot Act to "catch" the actual serious stuff and not Mets fans.

−37

fbtcu1998 t1_irbunwe wrote

>It's meant to do just that

They aren't trying to stop mass shootings, they're trying to keep guns out of everyone's hands, not just potential mass shooters.

>This is just fear disguised as innocent concern

I wouldn't say fear, more like history repeating itself. MLK was denied a permit to carry a firearm because he wasn't of "good moral character". Of course it was because of who he was and what he was saying, but they disguised it by claiming morality. It was a bad idea then, its a bad idea now. The only difference in the two is who they want to deny, but its still the government deciding who can exercise a right.

27

richalex2010 t1_irdv72x wrote

> This is just fear disguised as innocent concern.

This is literally what "good moral standing" clauses in almost every state's carry permit schemes was meant to do. It's a way of getting around the 14th amendment's equal protection clause without explicitly saying "black people can't have guns" - they'd just rule on a "case by case" basis and determine that almost no black person had "good moral standing" instead. How these rules are actually applied has evolved, but it boils down to the same idea - people the cops don't like don't get guns, doesn't matter if it's a reasonable concern over public safety or because they don't like an applicant's accent.

Police oversight is already basically nonexistent when they choke someone to death, what makes you think there's sufficient oversight to avoid misconduct in the permit issuing process?

12