Supreme Court says Second Amendment guarantees right to carry guns in public

The dumb ****ERY of the right and their bullshit interpretation of the 2A is ridiculous.

DD

 

that's big

 

They need to increase gun violence in NYC so they can claim the liberals are out of control. This is going to make the city a lot lot less safer.

 

Boy the Conservatives on the court really go out of their way to rationalize gun rulings. The gymnastics contained in the majority opinions is really something.

They're essentially arguing:

1. The second amendment is actually two things and the first half (right to bear arms) is disconnected from the second half (well regulated militia). This was established in the Heller case but they reinforced it. But its still stunning to read how they just disconnect the second amendment without even explaining the reasoning.

2. They then claim that it apparently was always understood that people could carry guns around in public for self defense (so self defense is apparently not limited to one's homes). Again, they're just plucking this out of thin air but they're claiming some sort of innate historical right to public self defense. This to me is the most objectionable part of the ruling. How in the world could they come to a conclusion like this? So because saloon towns in the 1800s were lawless cities where anyone could carry guns, its somehow an understood constitutional right?

3. Apparently, the court takes a very "historical" understanding of the second amendment in terms of its restrictions but the types of weapons that are allowed get to be updated. Again, if they're going to claim a right based on history, you also have to apply the historical definition of "arms." But they're claiming both a historical view of the regulation of firearms and a modern definition of arms.

4. The majority acknowledges that there are 'sensitive" places that guns can be banned from but they won't define what that means but they do say that states can't interpret that to mean any public space can't have guns. Again more arbitrary reasoning that is just conjured up.

5. They say that concealed carry licenses are allowed as long as they are "objective" in criteria. But again, there's no clear explanation or examples of what that means. If New York institutes a really difficult gun safety exam and a really high cost to purchase and renew a license, is that objective? It would in theory be equal for everyone but extremely onerous. I actually suspect they'll do something like this in response to test this case again.

6. They throw in the same line that they added to Heller and say that this ruling doesn't limit the ability of governments to regulate firearms. But then this decision is in turn striking down a regulation on firearms that was supposedly allowed after Heller. They've thrown this line into every controversial decision whether its guns, campaign finance, environmental regulation, etc.. and every time it means nothing as they turn around and restrict the government further in the next case.

 

I've read guns prevent 500,000-3,000,000 crimes per year. So, this is clearly a good thing, you should look forward to the elimination of crime with everyone carrying 2-3 guns on their persons at all times everywhere. What could go wrong?

 

Not the first example, but this is literally legislating from the bench, the same bullshit that right wing legal theorists used to pretend was an abhorrent sin for decades and built their entire identity around.

 

This happens at the same time were trying to get gun control legislation passed to curb gun violence and SCOTUS does this............WTF, it just goes against what the majority of the country wants to see happen to gun law

These are the six justices who supported the majority opinion:

• Clarence Thomas
• Samuel Alito
• John Roberts
• Brett Kavanaugh
• Neil Gorsuch
• Amy Coney Barrett

And these are the three justices who dissented:

• Stephen Breyer
• Sonia Sotomayor
• Elena Kagan

 

So does this mean anyone can buy a handgun now? Or just that anyone can conceal carry?

 

no, actually it's not

from the decision itself:

In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).

***
As the foregoing shows, Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. Whether it came to defining the character of the right (individual or militia dependent), suggesting the outer limits of the right, or assessing the constitutionality of a particular regulation, Heller relied on text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.

Moreover, Heller and McDonald expressly rejected the application of any “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry’ that ‘asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.’” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634 (quoting id., at 689–690 (BREYER, J., dissenting)); see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion) (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions” under means-end scrutiny). We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634. We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”
​

that's essentially the crux of the matter right there and why your assessment of their rationale is faulty

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/sonia-sotomayor-conservative-supreme-court/index.html

(CNN)Justice Sonia Sotomayor made crystal clear on Tuesday that she believes the conservatives on the Supreme Court -- including three of President Donald Trump's nominees -- are set to move the country sharply to the right by eviscerating or ignoring decades of precedent on issues that most divide the public.

Remaining cases this term include abortion, gun rights, the environment, immigration and a case involving a former public high school football coach who lost his job after leading prayers at the 50-yard line.

More at the link...............I guess court packing is a good think when you want to try and change precedent, come out with Roe V Wade already, we know how that's going to go

 

for what it's worth, the original NYC regulations and companion case that preceded this case allowed permit holders to possess a handgun in their residences, but made it very difficult to transport them to the range or to places outside the city for target practice etc (there are very few affordable pistol ranges in the city). That was the original "carry" problem that NY Rifle and Pistol tried to fight.**

When NY Rifle and Pistol Association brought that case forward and moved it along, NYC actually changed their regulations anticipating the city would lose that case. The Supreme Ct. did end up mooting that case, but over the dissents of Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito. There's good reason to believe that the 2020 decision fueled the push for this case.

This decision is pretty much entirely in keeping with Heller. I haven't read it carefully yet but I've skimmed it, and I recommend looking at Alito's response to Breyer's dissent. That alone is pretty much worth the price of admission.

** "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), abbreviated NYSRPA v. NYC, also known as NYSRPA I (to distinguish it from the subsequent case),"

 

Protecting guns is more important than protecting children.

History is clear: More guns = more gun violence.

 

Yes the country is about to take a big step to the right across many issues. We knew this was coming when RGB died instead of retiring. Abortion is likely to eventually be banned, guns laws will be weakened where they are strong (and the resulting violence will be blamed on liberal mayors), immigration from countries where people are brown (aka shithole countries) will be heavily restricted, and Jesus will be put back in schools and gov't. Environmental regulations will be struck down, and a host of other issues will shift to the right.

But people shouldn't lose hope. Because when you overplay your hand, and shift the pendulum too far one direction, there ultimately will be a bigger reaction the other way. It may take years, but ultimately in the long-run this will not yield the result the GOP is gunning for. Still, it's unfortunate.

 

Just as RBG intended.

 

Originalism at its finest.

 

RBG shoulda retired no question but in fairness - John Roberts (voting w the majority today) is the mother****er who put us on track to the paramilitary hellscape that is being sanctioned today (in order to avoid inconveniencing the next Justice whose spouse instigates the next coup?)

People of a centrist bent liked to give Balls and Strikes Roberts unwarranted props for being a gradualist on the road to hell for things like the ACA (which should not have even been close).

This misses the forest for the one tree.

Alito, Thomas etc are the arsonists of American Democracy, for sure, but John Roberts, CJ, is the guy who created the oily rag storage area and barred all the doors with a legacy of repression and activism ( assist to Anthony Kennedy)

If he wanted to save his legacy, the court, or Democracy - he'd have resigned a year ago. But he doesn't or is more likely just delusionally salami slicing us to hell where he'll be dead anyway

 

awful lot of words there, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

 

Havent read breyer's dissent , but it sounds like a pile of ****. What relevance would gun stats have in interpretting the law?

 

Why even write an opinion at this point?