Caetano Moves to NYC (Fork: NYSRPA v. NYC Thread)

[mrrabbit]

Note: This thread is a fork of the existing NYSRPA v. NYC thread in this very same sub-forum:

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1486495


First the relevant links:


Heller v. DC PDF

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Caetano v. Massachusetts PDF

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdf


A few nights back while typing out a rather long thread response to TrappedInCalifornia, my brain kept telling me:

"Caetano" "New York" "Caetano" "New York"...

This of course was only days after SCOTUS had pushed the NYSRPA v. NYC case back to "distribution for conference" after NYC had made a change to their law in a "mootness" maneuver.

So I went back and looked at Caetano.

Then it hit me. SCOTUS's judgement in Caetano reaffirmed several things from Heller v. DC:

1. Review or examine from a "history and tradition" standpoint.
2. The 2A did not preclude "future" firearms.
3. Firearms suitable for self defense did not have to be suitable for military use.

...and of course homeless persons like anyone else have the 2A right to keep and bear arms for self defense.


So I thought, what happens if Jaime Caetano decides to move to New York City?

Under New York City's previously just modified law . . .

"KABOOM!"

Here's why...

1. The previous law required that the gun could only be transported to a very specific place - a gun range or single home address.

2. Any attempt to try to provide an "exception" for homeless persons would directly undermine NYC's stated premise for their original law to begin with - "public safety".

3. NYC previous law already precluded not just Caetano, but the already existing ten's of thousand's of homeless in New York City from acquiring and possessing WITHOUT LEGAL JEOPARDY those arms suitable for self defense.


In other words, in deciding Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court of the United States had effectively already nullified, or put everyone on notice that laws like the one NYC had would be struck.

And of course, when NYSRPA v. NYC was taken up on cert, it certainly looked like that would happen.

Then New York City made it's "mootness" maneuver:


https://licensing.nypdonline.org/app...PORT%20LAW.pdf


Suddenly, that firearm can go to a second home or business in New York. And of course that means the dynamic home situation of the homelessness NO LONGER DIRECTLY UNDERMINES New York City firearm transport law.

In other words . . . New York City's "mootness" strategy MAY HAVE SUCCEEDED.

Keyword is "may".

Because if you read the details of the new law linked above, the secondary addresses must be specified - they cannot be dynamic.

On that detail alone, the homeless of New York City are still precluded by the new law from acquiring and possessing without legal jeopardy those arms suitable for self defense.

Not to mention the acceptance of online applications only.

Not to mention the locked container requirement renders it particularly inoperable for the homeless with an immediate self-defense need.


Therefore:

1. Caetano brings "history and tradition" as the level of scrutiny to the case.
2. New York City's "mootness" has worked - to an extent.
3. The homeless of New York City are still precluded from exercising their 2A right.


Question:

Does the "distribution for conference" move by SCOTUS indicate that at least one justice has balked?

=8-)

[SpookyWatcher]

I have said here before in a thread that a lynch pin case would be an eligible homeless person wanting to exercise their constitutional 2A right.

The entire scheme of the left would disintegrate!

Is my 2A right predicated on having a residence? Obviously the answer is no.

I believe that constitutional carry would solve that problem.

Answer that question and ALL licensing schemes fall apart.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by SpookyWatcher

I have said here before in a thread that a lynch pin case would be an eligible homeless person wanting to exercise their constitutional 2A right.

The entire scheme of the left would disintegrate!

Is my 2A right predicated on having a residence? Obviously the answer is no.

I believe that constitutional carry would solve that problem.

Answer that question and ALL licensing schemes fall apart.

And I remember you doing exactly that...which was part of the motivation to go ahead with this.

I can see a homeless person being used as a test case for just about any law that infringes on any basic civil right...

I'm kinda hoping someone files an Amicus Brief covering the territory I just covered.

=8-)

[gunsmith]

Interesting.
I am homeless, living in Nevada-fortunately i have a vehicle.
this is something that has fascinated me for quite some time.
I have had a ccw in the past but i prefer not to be a test case for privacy reasons .
really, most homeless in the USA are allowed all rights except 2A

[Robotron2k84]

Homeless population’s 2A rights are mostly already nullified in the case of firearms as a significant portion are mentally ill and would cinch being adjudicated defective. As well, many are addicted and illegal substance abusers.

Color me skeptical, but I don’t see SCOTUS going out of their way to promote anything but less-than-lethal tools under 2A jurisprudence for this segment of the population. They will uphold GCA in this case.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

Homeless population’s 2A rights are mostly already nullified in the case of firearms as a significant portion are mentally ill and would cinch being adjudicated defective. As well, many are addicted and illegal substance abusers.

Color me skeptical, but I don’t see SCOTUS going out of their way to promote anything but less-than-lethal tools under 2A jurisprudence for this segment of the population. They will uphold GCA in this case.

Read the Caetano v. Massachusetts . . .

. . . they noted that MA was not in any way tending to, caring for, or providing any kind of supervised care for Jamie Caetano, nor protection of any kind.

She was left 100% to fend for herself, and she did.

When the state doesn't care for it's homeless, including those that qualify as dangerously mentally ill, it has abandoned its responsibility to exercise its right to adjudicate as dangerously mentally ill, and confine to supervision...
and in doing so, leaves the right to self-defense in the hands of the person in question.

You can't tell someone: "You're dangerously mentally ill, but we're NOT going adjudicate and confine to you a supervised care arrangement, AND you can't exercise your 2A right to self defense. Best of luck to you on the streets..."

That's a state trying to have it both ways...

=8-|

[LINY]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

Homeless population’s 2A rights are mostly already nullified in the case of firearms as a significant portion are mentally ill and would cinch being adjudicated defective. As well, many are addicted and illegal substance abusers.

Color me skeptical, but I don’t see SCOTUS going out of their way to promote anything but less-than-lethal tools under 2A jurisprudence for this segment of the population. They will uphold GCA in this case.

That’s because you’re not thinking like a liberal, who expects SCOTUS to do exactly that!

[Robotron2k84]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Read the Caetano v. Massachusetts . . .

. . . they noted that MA was not in any way tending to, caring for, or providing any kind of supervised care for Jamie Caetano, nor protection of any kind.

She was left 100% to fend for herself, and she did.

When the state doesn't care for it's homeless, including those that qualify as dangerously mentally ill, it has abandoned its responsibility to exercise its right to adjudicate as dangerously mentally ill, and confine to supervision...
and in doing so, leaves the right to self-defense in the hands of the person in question.

You can't tell someone: "You're dangerously mentally ill, but we're NOT going adjudicate and confine to you a supervised care arrangement, AND you can't exercise your 2A right to self defense. Best of luck to you on the streets..."

That's a state trying to have it both ways...

=8-|

Let’s be real here...if SCOTUS upholds firearms rights for people who have a high propensity to be crazy or addicts, then the welfare codes will simply be rewritten at the state level to make sure homeless people with firearms, that evince even the slightest aggressive tendencies will be put before the court to have their rights stripped though commitment.

Yes, there are people without residences that are not crazy or addicts that have a definite stake in this fight, but GCA already foreclosed crazy and drugged from Federally allowing a sale of a firearm to just anybody. And, remember, PPT still falls under GCA if you suspect the person may be prohibited.

Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, before he killed Kate Steinle with a stolen P239, accosted and assaulted a friend of mine, with the gun in hand. This was never made public and the SF prosecutor never intended to show that he possessed the gun prior to the shooting. Don’t be fooled by how charitable SCOTUS was to Caetano’s plight, giving full 2A rights to crazy people is neither sane nor justified, nor was it in the history or tradition of the Second Amendment to allow insane people to possess firearms. They took them away, in antiquity, just like they should do, today.

[Epaphroditus]

A nomadic lifestyle does not make one homeless nor crazy.

[Robotron2k84]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

A nomadic lifestyle does not make one homeless nor crazy.

That’s totally up for debate. Hiking around in the wilderness, living off the grid and part of the food chain...agree 100%. Living in an urban setting, in your car or on the street because you can’t work or housing demand is too great, mostly disagree. A sane person would find a way to put a roof over their head, even if it meant sharing space or relocating.

Living on the street, talking to imaginary people, defecating in public. Nope, sorry, that’s the poster child for our failed mental health system. This segment needs to be under custodial care.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

Let’s be real here...if SCOTUS upholds firearms rights for people who have a high propensity to be crazy or addicts, then the welfare codes will simply be rewritten at the state level to make sure homeless people with firearms, that evince even the slightest aggressive tendencies will be put before the court to have their rights stripped though commitment.

I do not see that as a bad thing. Those people need to be adjudicated insane and taken care of.

[Solidsnake87]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

That’s totally up for debate. Hiking around in the wilderness, living off the grid and part of the food chain...agree 100%. Living in an urban setting, in your car or on the street because you can’t work or housing demand is too great, mostly disagree. A sane person would find a way to put a roof over their head, even if it meant sharing space or relocating. Heck, when I was in grad school at Stanford, I considered that lifestyle as it would have saved me $20k.

Living on the street, talking to imaginary people, defecating in public. Nope, sorry, that’s the poster child for our failed mental health system. This segment needs to be under custodial care.

I see where you're coming from, but I know plenty of people that are contract employees in silicon valley and LA. They can't afford housing, so they live out of their car. Heck, half of Google lives out of their cars. Literally, it's a common trend to throw a mattress in your car since work covers food, provides showers, facilities, etc...none of these people are any less deserving of the right to self defense, simply because they live a different lifestyle.

It might not be a life style you or I would chose, but we must stand for everyone's rights.

[Robotron2k84]

Vagrancy used to be a crime because it adds to blight and associated crime, and makes conditions worse for the community.

IMHO, I would argue that through vagrancy non-enforcement and capitulating to the likes of Google and Zuckbook, the lives of those working for such organizations are lessened and the areas made more problematic. RV parking, trash dumping, petit crime, etc.

It used to be that if you worked at a company and couldn’t afford to live near, you lived farther away and commuted, or worked somewhere else. Young people today don’t understand that their labor is theirs on a free-market basis, and this has led to a very indentured style of employment.

It’s probably best for everyone involved to start going back to enforcing vagrancy statutes and let the chips fall where they may.

[Epaphroditus]

When I worked as a systems engineer in Silicon Valley I lived in WA state. I worked a 4/10 commuting into CA and lived in a van 4 days a week. It was hugely economical.

In college I lived in a van. Hugely economical. No permanent residence for years. Considered myself a shrewd nomad. Not crazy, homeless nor a blight but a very productive member of society - marginalized.

[gobler]

I can also confirm that "homelessness" does not necessarily mean crazy/addict. My best friend, fresh out of the Coast Guard, didn't have a place to live. He got a job at Yahoo in Burbank so he slept in his truck and showered at work. He did this for six months till he was able to buy a home in San Bernardino. He aslo did the 4/10 work week and slept in his truck while working and drove home for his days off. It was very common for most of the techs.

[Robotron2k84]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

When I worked as a systems engineer in Silicon Valley I lived in WA state. I worked a 4/10 commuting into CA and lived in a van 4 days a week. It was hugely economical.

In college I lived in a van. Hugely economical. No permanent residence for years. Considered myself a shrewd nomad. Not crazy, homeless nor a blight but a very productive member of society - marginalized.

Originally Posted by gobler

I can also confirm that "homelessness" does not necessarily mean crazy/addict. My best friend, fresh out of the Coast Guard, didn't have a place to live. He got a job at Yahoo in Burbank so he slept in his truck and showered at work. He did this for six months till he was able to buy a home in San Bernardino. He aslo did the 4/10 work week and slept in his truck while working and drove home for his days off. It was very common for most of the techs.

Residential hotels used to be the solution for workers that needed to sustain a room while saving or while in the area temporarily. Today, these businesses are seen as flop houses for the poor and are generally dirty and substandard. Extended stay hotels offer too little of a discount over a normal hotel to be in this class.

We, as a country, used to take much better care of these situations than we do, today.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by gobler

I can also confirm that "homelessness" does not necessarily mean crazy/addict.

I third that. I had a friend in college that lived out of an RV. He was not crazy. He was not a user of any controlled substances. He was incredibly smart (mathematics PhD candidate). He wasn't incapable of maintaining a residence, he just loved surfing and being mobile. He'd park by campus during the week, then park at the beach on the weekends. During the summers, he'd road-trip.

He was unusual, but a very laid-back, cool guy to hang out with and definitely a productive member of society.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, before he killed Kate Steinle with a stolen P239, accosted and assaulted a friend of mine, with the gun in hand. This was never made public and the SF prosecutor never intended to show that he possessed the gun prior to the shooting. Don’t be fooled by how charitable SCOTUS was to Caetano’s plight, giving full 2A rights to crazy people is neither sane nor justified, nor was it in the history or tradition of the Second Amendment to allow insane people to possess firearms. They took them away, in antiquity, just like they should do, today.

Police Report? Where is it? If true, this guy should have got life.

[Epaphroditus]

Not to mention large numbers of retirees who load up into an RV and tour the country for months at a stretch. Many of whom sell their primary residence and have permanent address.

[Robotron2k84]

Originally Posted by mshill

Police Report? Where is it? If true, this guy should have got life.

Suppressed by the SF DA’s office. My friend did not want to pursue it farther, even after urging them to, on my part. I can understand not wanting to be in the middle of such a crap-storm, but I would have made it available if it was me.

Bottom line is that SF cared more about Zarate than Steinle, and put their politics ahead of their residents’ safety.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

Suppressed by the SF DA’s office. My friend did not want to pursue it farther, even after urging them to, on my part. I can understand not wanting to be in the middle of such a crap-storm, but I would have made it available if it was me.

Bottom line is that SF cared more about Zarate than Steinle, and put their politics ahead of their residents’ safety.

If your friend has proof of that, he needs to provide it to the right people to make this destroy San Francisco.

I have some resources I can suggest or recommend, PM if you need.

Otherwise, he’s engaging in dereliction of duty to fight seditious actors and the possibility to get this to result in federal oversight and violations of civil rights. We’re in the middle of a cold civil war that could go hot at any moment. San Francisco especially is engaging in illegal nullification.

Either he’s a deserter and basically worthless or we beee to get this into the right hands in the right way to start winning.

[Jimi Jah]

Originally Posted by SpookyWatcher

I have said here before in a thread that a lynch pin case would be an eligible homeless person wanting to exercise their constitutional 2A right.

The entire scheme of the left would disintegrate!

Which is why those cases will be ignored by the SCOTUS. Can't upset the apple cart.

[Robotron2k84]

https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2...se-far-common/

LA Times, if you can believe them, reports 67% of homeless (in lateral studies) have either mental illness/mental health issues, or substance abuse issues.



Looks like being unsheltered drives a lot of the breakdown, but hard data as to the unsheltered ones and the determination of their rights.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84;23486684
[B

Looks like being unsheltered drives a lot of the breakdown,[/B] but hard data as to the unsheltered ones and the determination of their rights.

While it may drive some of the breakdown, if you have ever had to deal with someone who has serious mental illness, you will find that the mentally ill often drive away and alienate the very family, friends, and institutions that very much would like to help them. Once the support structure is gone they cannot survive on their own and likely have nowhere else to go.

I have first hand experience and it is sad and disheartening.

[gunsmith]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

That’s totally up for debate. Hiking around in the wilderness, living off the grid and part of the food chain...agree 100%. Living in an urban setting, in your car or on the street because you can’t work or housing demand is too great, mostly disagree. A sane person would find a way to put a roof over their head, even if it meant sharing space or relocating.

Living on the street, talking to imaginary people, defecating in public. Nope, sorry, that’s the poster child for our failed mental health system. This segment needs to be under custodial care.

obviously you have never really experienced this scenario for yourself.
I have spent nearly two yrs being mostly living in a pickup truck .

I "can" rent a pay by the week hotel in Reno where i currently reside.
What I get for 250 a week is ...bed bugs/prostitutes/thieves/neighbors playing loud thug rap music day and night because they're on welfare and do not need to wake up at 0530 like I do to get to work.
I tried to stay in one and all my money was stolen.
Another one I had to deal with bed bugs...you try that for a few weeks buddy-you have to be really crazy to pay for that.
its really difficult to work full time and live the nomadic lifestyle and look for a share.
everywhere you go here, its advertised as "420 friendly" I think weed should be legal but no way will i ever live with potheads again ( unless its the totally hot redhead i work with, but she has a bf ) .... but anyway going to the gym to shower and finding places to eat take up all my free time - i eat as healthy as i can and the only fast food i get is chik-fila once a month ... saving money and finding places to live are a lot more difficult than you can ever imagine ...
You can easily verify this for yourself.
You try living out of your car, only spend the money you earned that day.
do that for only two months and tell me how you do it, you could make money on youtube with your new improved van life skills
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAj...bkIR54hAn6Zz7A
I have one nice 625 s&w and a truck - i work and do not ask for or want EBT or whatever it is the liberal rat trap is trying to give me.

I have rights and while I am not willing to be a test case, I am not inclined to give up my rights either.

Just because you do not understand something hardly qualifies it as insane.
I do not understand why people enjoy KOIT radio in SF, I do not understand why people like Rap, I do not understand why people vote D.

I only have me to rely on, no family to help me out and the only help .gov gives is welfare hotels and homeless shelters - only insane people take that - you would be physically safer to sleep in a tent in the park.
TB is spread in homeless shelters as well as othe communicable airborne diseases.
Shelters are as safe as prisons, you do not imagine they would let me bring a gun into one. do you?