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

This is a good ruling. The law was inconstitucional and NY can’t violate an American’s right to keep and bear arms

 

This could also spell the end of Citizens United. I see not right guarantee for corporations in the document but who am I kidding

 

Time to stack the court.....gloves off.

DD

 

I don't want to hear any people defending millions of gun toting fools crying about violence in this country. You never know when any one of them will lose their cool and shoot people instead of using their voice. As for parents who have kids that get hands on their guns and kill themselves or someone else, their parents should all be locked up fir life.

 

Yeah right. Originalism simply means that the justices will enforce the original intent of the founders where it suits the agenda of their benefactors.

 

why do you think I said “who am I kidding” lol

 

The thing that should concern people is not the lurch to one side of the political spectrum, it's the startling resemblance to democratic instability that we bear right now. I'm less concerned about specific legislative or judicial rulings and far more concerned about whether we are Weimar.

 

honestly Toobin is kind of an idiot here. Obviously didn't even read the opinion



text:

TOOBIN: You know, we know that in the United States, you have the right under the First Amendment to say pretty much anything anywhere, because we have freedom of speech in the United States. What the conservatives on the Supreme Court are saying is that we want the Second Amendment to be a first-class right like the First Amendment. And we want to be able to carry guns anywhere, any time, without any sort of regulation by the government, without background checks, without restrictions on where you can take a weapon, without restrictions on how you can carry a weapon.

Now, they haven’t gone that far yet, but they are clearly moving in that direction. And, you know, we can’t separate this issue from what’s going on in the world, where we have a tremendous problem with gun violence in this country, we have mass shootings, we have 18-year-olds with access to AR-14s, 15s, and the Supreme Court is moving in the direction of saying the government cannot regulate that traffic at all.
​

the Supreme Court is doing exactly NONE of the above

 

Jonathan Turley argues that New York continues to shoot itself in the foot so to speak, and in the process ends up strengthening gun rights in the long run:

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul immediately declared “Shocking, absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions.” The Claude Rain moment aside, it was shocking that Hochul would be shocked. Many of us were predicting a major loss for over a year and New York, as usual, litigated a bad case and made more bad law for gun control advocates.

Gov. Hochul added ““This is New York. We don’t back down.” That may be welcomed news for gun rights advocates given the record in cases like this one in reinforcing Second Amendment rights. As previously discussed, New York has proven a fount of cases strengthening gun rights.
​

citing this essay at https://jonathanturley.org/2021/12/...er-latest-legislative-misfire-on-gun-control/ , where he wrote:

However, no state has done more for the Second Amendment than New York.

In 2020, the city triggered a controversial appeal in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York. The law barred the transfer of unloaded and locked firearms from one’s residence to anywhere other than a small number of designated shooting ranges within the city. At its passage, New York officials pounded their chests and promised they were certain of the constitutionality of the law and would litigate it all the way to the Supreme Court. When the court accepted the case for review, however, the same officials scrambled to dismiss the case as moot after later rescinding the provisions.

The Court was not amused by New York’s gaming the judicial system. New York leaders had forced costly litigation only to pull the law at the last minute to avoid a likely finding of unconstitutionality.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas specifically called out New York for “manipulating” the docket by withdrawing an unconstitutional law just before a final opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined in the condemnation and noted, in light of the Second Circuit decision in the case, that “some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”

The Court notably then proceeded to take a new case challenging a different New York law by the same lead plaintiff: the New York State Rifle Association. That case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and deals with the Sullivan Act of 1911, giving local officials discretion over who can carry concealed guns based on a showing of “proper cause.” Bruen could now result in a major enhancement of Second Amendment rights for concealed carry permits — negating a host of laws across the country.

New York is not done with its circular firing squad on gun control.
​

more at the link

 

Great decision.

 

I agree 100%. The attack on the electoral and voting system is very troubling.

 

the correct response to Toobin and others of his ilk

'The Second Amendment Is Not Unlimited,' Brett Kavanaugh Stresses in SCOTUS Gun Case
“Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of gun regulations,” Kavanaugh writes, invoking Antonin Scalia

https://reason.com/2022/06/23/the-s...-brett-kavanaugh-stresses-in-scotus-gun-case/

excerpt:

First, Kavanaugh stressed, the constitutional problem with New York's licensing scheme for carrying handguns in public was that "it grants open-ended discretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense." By contrast, "43 States employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes. Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements." Today's decision by the Court, Kavanaugh emphasized, did not touch any of that in any of those 43 states. "Shall-issue licensing regimes are constitutionally permissible, subject of course to an as-applied challenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in that manner in practice."

Kavanaugh's second point was drawn straight from the Heller language that I quoted above. "Properly interpreted," Kavanaugh wrote, invoking Scalia, "the Second Amendment allows a 'variety' of gun regulations."
​

more at the link

 

Good point!

- Brett K, Maryland

 

if we are all going to carry guns, and guns prevent crimes, then we can eliminate the police department and the criminal court system. Yeeeee Hawwww

 

Funny how mass shootings ALWAYS take place in "gun free zones".

If guns cause more violence, why are all of our government officials and politicians protected with firearms?

I'll actually believe "more guns = more violence" BS when our politicians get rid of their armed security guards. Until them, my home security system will continue to be 2A.

 

I say this with 100% conviction. YES. If we diverted Police funds to pure traffic enforcement and criminal investigation we’d save multi billions in this country.

 

Government officials aren't allowed to have firearms in places like the Capitol building. It's just like schools, law enforcement has the guns. So like schools with resource officers. And we saw what cops do in this situation anyways.

The US capitol building is just as much a gun free zone as a public school. Only law enforcement are allowed to carry guns in both types of places.

It's such a stupid talking point.

 

At what point will people just accept that all of this, on both sides is political. This vaunted Court that Roberts and others claim exists doesn't exist and it never existed. It didn't exist when the Court was concerned about black people remaining slaves, it didn't exist when the Court called the mentally ill imbeciles that should be sterilized, it didn't exist when the Court said sodomy should be illegal..... or any numbers of things that the Court has supported over the years.

It is a political animal, and the only escape from that is over decades people sometimes change their politics.... so you have a Kennedy or another Justice that changes their political opinions on the margins.

RBG was not honest with herself when she claimed it was more than that - it never was - wasn't in Bush v. Gore (where ever single Justice whored themselves for politics) and it isn't on anything that happens now or in the future. It is cute that there are some Justice's like Roberts that are so ego driven that they can "moderate".

The Sotomayor and the Alito we are seeing ARE who these people really are, for good or bad depending on your politics.... we should treat them the way we treat any other branch of government.

I say that as a former federal prosecutor and as an attorney.