The court heard the case today about New York carry restrictions and need to show special cause, my question is for the Folks on here is " The court has already ruled the police have no duty to protect you then how can the government ( city, state or federal ) then restrict my right to protect myself?" And has it been brought or is it proper to bring up in a case like this?

I really don't want this to turn into a shouldn't need a permit discussion but to cover the "shall grant vs the special need requirement " that exists.

shall not be infringed seems a simple thing to me

the courts frequently answer one very very very narrow question when they take up a case like this.

they choose to ignore the much larger question

in my opinion no adult US citizen with out due process of law for a serious crime they committed should be barred the used of a firearm for defense of person or property in any public place. with only a few narrow exceptions , like not being able to bring a gun to a prison when visiting.

I also believe that it is the right of a building owner to post their building telling the customers or visitors that they are not welcome if carrying a gun and they can find that sale or service else were.

to answer your question , being you are the only one responsible for you , you should not be denied any tool of defense in public or your home.

I also think that the point is so well made for the PDW that NFA34 as it pertains to the PDW should be stuck down as an unconstitutional taxation of a right.

It has been my longtime opinion that governments on any level that restrict people’s ability to defend themselves are creating state-mandated victims.

greencountrypete, why not just keep people to dangerous to own firearms in prison or mental hospitals? those laws you advocate do NOTHING to keep people safer

There is no one better to protect my family and myself than me. If a store owner does not want me to enter his/her place of business then post a sign stating so, yet on the other have IF I am assaulted by some one in there business they should be held accountable.
JMO

Including Banks ....they post but have no Security present

I agree with GCPete's analysis.

Jim

I love seeing the “No Firearms” sign posted on an establishment and inside seeing four or five police officers having lunch wearing their sidearms. lol

I also agree with GCP. Danny I don't agree with. No law alone keeps anyone safe. It takes action by someone to counter threats by lawbreakers and NY is preventing their citizens from taking action to protect themselves.

I listened to some of the arguments as they were made. One attorney for the state argued that it was reasonable to restrict firearms in the high population areas because of increased police presence. That argument, if accepted, would mean that as population increases the 2nd Amendment would go away. The justices did not pull the string on that particular line of thought, but did question how it could be that a constitutional right would be less applicable becase of population density.

So people with a mental illness should be allowed a gun as long as they haven't broken a law?

If you look at English law from 1789, felonies were crimes for which no other punishment was available than death. So why do we make everything a felony now if you can be sentenced to a year and a day? It's all about control.

Yes. There are lots of kinds, and most people with a mental illness are not dangerous. They have the right to protect themselves too.

Jim

What impression did you get from the questions the Justices were asking?

I got a good feeling from them.

Yes, and here is the reason. Who gets to say who has a mental illness? Just becuse it seems ok to you today these things always creap. What you like freedom and the constitution, voted for Trump, dont like men in the womans bathroom, want to voice your anger at a school board meeting after your daughter got raped by a trans in the girls bathroom and they are covering it up.
Well no guns for you.

So you are walking down the street and there is a guy talking to a box about all the aliens he sees and how he has to stop them that guy should have a gun? Just one of many cases I have seen in large cities. I don't want the locale nut job armed.

Well because it serves little purpose to keep Alec Baldwin in prison forever if he can just be stripped of his rights , pay restitution to the family and work burger king flipping burgers for the rest of his days.

Yes, the local, as you call it "nutjob" should be able to have a gun.

Until he breaks the law hes good to have one.
Prov. Farm makes the point, the state will be the one to determine if your a "nutjob".
If you don't believe in trans rights, critical race theory and what ever progressive lunatic cause of the day is you can be determined a nutjob by some leftist judge.

Your wants don't trump people's rights. If you're worried, stay home and watch tv.

I am sort of shocked , Jim

you know what a PDW is , right

the ATF calls it an SBR short barreled rifle

they and about all the rest of the agencies specifically sight their attributes as a PDW Personal Defensive Weapon

I have only been playing with them as braced pistols, thinking about a form1 but I can tell you running a defensive pistol type course with one is fast and accurate like shave 30% of the time off the best guy with a pistol and beat him for accuracy