| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Supreme Court shoots down NY rule that set high bar for concealed handgun licenses |
| 2022-06-23 |
| Posted by:Skidmark |
| #13 Alito demolished the dissenting Justices stories. See comment #11 on the Ghost Guns article for a link. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2022-06-23 19:05 |
| #12 "Don't need a gun because Police will protect you" looks pretty fucking stupid right now. And the most honest court on Earth cannot bring you back from the dead. That's a great line. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2022-06-23 17:29 |
| #11 Even in a truly ideal world, an honest policeman a few minutes away will be no help at all when you only have seconds to act to save yourself. And the most honest court on Earth cannot bring you back from the dead. Posted by M. Murcek 2022-06-23 12:32|| 2022-06-23 12:32|| Front Page || Comments Top Ref: Uvalde Elementary School Grades 1-3 |
| Posted by: Black Charlie Slairt1430 2022-06-23 16:53 |
| #10 Wasn't long ago I saw a meme that said if guys got a time machine they'd go back and tell the Founders, "Write the second one like you are explaining it to a five year old." Basically, Thomas skewered each of the wishful, imaginative anti-gun misinterpretations that have been floating around for years. I don't think he missed anything or opened any new holes in the process. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-06-23 15:59 |
| #9 I can read! "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" no if's and's or but's. |
| Posted by: irish rage boy 2022-06-23 15:39 |
| #8 Well, she wasn't hired for her looks. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2022-06-23 15:11 |
| #7 All too believable. Hochul comes out and as soon as she opens her mouth, she demonstrates she has not read the ruling. She's talking about muskets, even though Thomas eviscerated that straw man explicitly in his opinion. These politicians actually are this stupid. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-06-23 14:23 |
| #6 It's not even an issue up for trade. It's acknowledged law that the police have no duty to protect you. That leaves it up to you. Even in a truly ideal world, an honest policeman a few minutes away will be no help at all when you only have seconds to act to save yourself. And the most honest court on Earth cannot bring you back from the dead. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-06-23 12:32 |
| #5 Dear gun grabbers - if you provided a society that could believe in and trust enforcement of laws (not selectively) and real punishment for crimes (equitably), maybe you'd have an easier time of selling your product. Strangely enough, the Venn diagram of those who push gun grabbing and those who undermine those concepts of crime and punishment appear to be very tight. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2022-06-23 12:29 |
| #4 The decision tacitly backs the notion that there is a Constitutional right to self-defense. That's gonna be a problem for the "nobody needs an AR-15 for deer hunting." Not that it will slow down such straw-man burners for a moment. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-06-23 12:09 |
| #3 In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas writes . . . The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. And then there’s this . . . It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. 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,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. And Justice Thomas made a particular point to include this gem . . . 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.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). 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 self defense 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. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-06-23 11:52 |
| #2 ^ They did say the rights laid out in the Constitution are not subject to bureaucrapic whim. It's a far-reaching decision that won't be properly understood for a while. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-06-23 11:49 |
| #1 HMMMM. Did the court just redefine the 2nd amendment to self defense?? |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2022-06-23 11:43 |