SCOTUS strikes down New York's handgun law

[BabyBoomer50s]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/new-york-gun-law-supreme-court-decision/index.html

 

[ll74]

“Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess,” Alito wrote.

 

[Rightguide]

"It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of 'the people' whom the Second Amendment protects," Thomas said further, citing Heller.

"And no party disputes that handguns are weapons 'in common use' today for self-defense," he wrote.

"The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch's and Nash's proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of 'bear' naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,'... and confrontation can surely take place outside the home."

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'" the Court states, citing McDonald.

"The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for selfdefense is no different. New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public."

 

[JohnEngelman]

It will be interesting to see if the crime rate in New York goes up or down because of this decision.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Just what america needs, more.lunatics carrying guns.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Well, having the gun is one thing! Now they need the right to protect their castle!!

You still need a permit to enable your 2A rights!!???? Tyranny! That’s that’s .. regulation !!

 

[Rightguide]

Where is Lit's left? Are they in shock to read that what we told them is true and proper?

 

[Rightguide]

Well, having the gun is one thing! Now they need the right to protect their castle!!

You still need a permit to enable your 2A rights!!???? Tyranny! That’s that’s .. regulation !!

Not according to this language.

"The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for selfdefense is no different.

 

[ll74]

This ruling didn't change my push for an AR-15 ban as well as an age requirement bump.

 

[Rightguide]

Looks like Butters has swooned with a case of the vapors.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It will be interesting to see if the crime rate in New York goes up or down because of this decision.

The decision has implications for other states with similar laws such as California.

 

[Rightguide]

The decision has implications for other states with similar laws such as California.

It may even reopen the door for open carry, or constitutional carry as exists in 25 states.

 

[ll74]

It may even reopen the door for open carry, or constitutional carry as exists in 25 states.

It has implications regarding carry requirements in every state

 

[JohnEngelman]

I dislike guns, I hate criminals, and I do not care about the Second Amendment. I am in favor of some gun control laws, but I think liberals over estimate the importance of gun control laws in reducing crime, just as they over estimate the efficacy of reducing poverty in reducing crime. I also think liberals underestimate the importance of severe punishment in reducing the crime rate.

 

[rockcasbah]

I dislike guns, I hate criminals, and I do not care about the Second Amendment. I am in favor of some gun control laws, but I think liberals over estimate the importance of gun control laws in reducing crime, just as they over estimate the efficacy of reducing poverty in reducing crime. I also think liberals underestimate the importance of severe punishment in reducing the crime rate.

I think you should stop hating criminals and go share feelings with them, becayse crime has no logical purpose… it’s all psychological.

You could pair up with Butters on this; like you, she wants to simply talk to people and share with them the value of the truth… her truth.

 

[dmonty]

Just what america needs, more.lunatics carrying guns.

The lunatics already did, the NY "Sullivan Act" was always Unconstitutional, as it just denied the innocent the ability to protect themselves when they would need to balance the decision do I carry a gun for self defense as is legal, but also take the chance that the corrupt police departments staffed with oath violators with complicit oath violators in the DA's and Courts that won't falsely arrest, prosecute and jail that innocent person for not committing any crimes

 

[JohnEngelman]

I think you should stop hating criminals and go share feelings with them, becayse crime has no logical purpose… it’s all psychological.

You could pair up with Butters on this; like you, she wants to simply talk to people and share with them the value of the truth… her truth.

Crime does have a logical purpose. It is a high risk profession or trade in which the criminal gets more money than he could legally.

 

[rockcasbah]

Okay, thanks.

 

[Wrong Element]

It's going to be fun to watch the illegitimate Supreme Court forget all about its "the states can't regulate anything about guns even though the Second Amendment mentions regulation in its text" in the next 24 hours or so when it announces that abortion is now a state matter.

 

[dmonty]

It's going to be fun to watch the illegitimate Supreme Court forget all about its "the states can't regulate anything about guns even though the Second Amendment mentions regulation in its text" in the next 24 hours or so when it announces that abortion is now a state matter.

The Bill of Rights have a preamble, that makes it explicitly clear (plus all the debates, and writings by the Federalists and Anti-Federalist) why the Bill of Rights was needed and that it existed solely to constrain the governments (mostly Federal, but also the States when enumerating where "The People" held absolute power/control of a civil liberty).

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights, relates the fact that the legislatures of several states had requested that a number of amendments, or a Bill of Rights, be added to the Constitution. They believed that the Constitution was not clear enough in protecting certain rights of the people, such as the freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion and the right to trial by jury.

"Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.​

​

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.​

​

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several states as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution. viz.​

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and Ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."​

The 2nd Amendment denied the Federal government from any gun control laws, however it also specifically provided and declared that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Determine for themselves when and where they can carry or what they can carry or own, the states were specifically prohibited as well.

With the ratification of the 9th "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."& 10th Amendments "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

once again though SCOTUS relied upon the 14th Amendment, when in fact the 9th & 10th incorporate the civil liberty, not the 14th - but at the end of the day it still protected the 2nd amendment, sadly the 2nd is still trampled upon by allowing the government to continue to infringe upon it, with the multitude of 1000's of unconstitutional laws on the books being enforced by oath violators.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

 

[ll74]

“Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess,” Alito wrote.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I see we are at the "man-splainin' teh 2nd Amendment" part of the post-school massacre debate.

What part of "the right of the people to shoot up schools" do these Libtards not unnerstand? Hurr Durr!

 

[icanhelp1]

It's going to be fun to watch the illegitimate Supreme Court forget all about its "the states can't regulate anything about guns even though the Second Amendment mentions regulation in its text" in the next 24 hours or so when it announces that abortion is now a state matter.

The states can regulate.

In MA AR15s are banned, magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds. You need a background check for a CC and for purchase of a handgun.

what’s needed is to enforce the laws on the books.

 

[dmonty]

The states can regulate.

In MA AR15s are banned, magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds. You need a background check for a CC and for purchase of a handgun.

what’s needed is to enforce the laws on the books.

The 9th & 10th explicitly say that they can't "regulate" anything regarding any arms.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Only six States and the District of Columbia have “may issue” licensing laws instead of “shall issue,” under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license, the SCOTUS decision says. “Aside from New York, then, only California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have analogues to the ‘proper cause’ standard.”