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

He'll feel better after he rubs one out.

 

Toobin shouldn't even have a job, it is a joke.

He cannot control himself in his private life, so why would anyone expect him to be worthy of reading and interpreting SCOTUS rulings.

Between the masturbating and exposing himself to his coworkers and having a public affair and threatening Jeff Greenfield's daughter to have an abortion or she would be sorry.

Some how this clown keeps his job at CNN though.

 

Honestly John Roberts isn't the least of the problem. He's the most a political conservative on the bench. The problem are the 3: Alito, Thomas, & Barrett who allow their politics to completely determine their ruling, using spurious legal reasoning to justify their decisions. Thomas and Barrett shouldn't even been on the bench.

 

You are ALWAYS wrong every time you use an absolute statement, almost always. It's so easy to prove this statement wrong that I'm not even going to waste my time with it.

Because guns are still legal and widely available?

I don't think you understand how public policy works and the role of the government. It's about creating an equal playing field for all. It's like asking the lambs to chill out and expecting the wolves to behave. Don't work like that.

 

Wow I didn't know that people actually even questioned the notion that more guns means more violence. I assumed all of the massive studies done on the topic were accepted.

The other points you made are not going to be taken seriously.

I have thought the real debate was whether or not the Constitution allows for restrictions on fire arms and if so, to what extent.

I learned something new today.

 

[Educational Post]
This SCOTUS ruling is a huge victory today for the PEOPLE. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is an essential protection against the enforcement of unjust laws and a MUCH NEEDED check on government power. Students of history know that governments across the world have killed FAR MORE innocent people than any mass shooter or gang member. We need protection. Read the Federalist Papers -- specifically 29 and 46 -- in case you want to know the Founders' intent for the 2nd Amendment. It's not for hunting. It's to protect against a tyrannical government.

Furthermore, the events of the summer of 2020, when BLM was causing violent chaos on our streets and threatening people across the nation should have made obvious the need for self defense. And the events of 2020-2022 where the government used COVID as an excuse to infringe upon individuals' rights in a way not seen since internment camps during WW2 should have made clear the need for an armed populace.

Democrats are angry people intent on micromanaging the lives of individuals. They don't trust people and they get drunk easily on power. They become rabid, vindictive animals when they can't control people. Guns are an essential safeguard to keep them from interfering in our lives.

GOOD DAY

 

HERE IS MY ISSUE:
I would be fine with this type of thing
*IF* simply having a gun did not give police the automatic and defacto right to kill people on site.

IN THIS COUNTRY
If you have a gun on your person . . .. .
regardless if you didn't pull it
regardless if you didn't make a move for it
SIMPLY HAVING A GUN ON YOU OR NEAR YOU GIVES THE POLICE CARTE BANCHE DISCRETION TO KILL YOU *ON SITE*

You can lie and say it doesn't but it does

The Police said - he had a gun and I was scare for my life
AND THEY GET OFF *EVERY* TIME

SO! There is also the implicit biases, bigotry and racism of the policeman will determine who dies/gets shot and who goes not
12 yr old white boy. . . .warning
Tamir Rice - Dead within 5 SECONDS of a cop showing up

As a Black Man . . I SIMPLY CANNOT JUST HAVE A GUN ON ME ., . .. Bad Day/bad Attitude/Didn't like my hair cut
The Cop could kill me and not have a single repurcussion behind it
maybe 2 weeks paid vacation

So this is DEFINITELY the law turned the Second Amendment into a limited privilege

Rocket River

 

A. Your AR 15 isn't going to protect you when the government comes knocking. Hope carrying it makes you feel like a real man when you're shopping for your fruit of the loom tighty whities and wife beaters at Walmart.

B. So you support a Woman;s right to safeguard her individual reproductive rights against a tyrannical government dead set on micromanaging literally 50% of the population?

For the record I support 2A and I'm a pacifist of the highest order. I rearmed myself because we need protection... from the crazy right wing that wants to high jack our democracy and kill anyone who doesn't conform in their neo-fascist-christian nation and continues to push a narrative that hating and discriminating against others is OK.

 

don’t waste your time with TJ. He’s irony wrapped in **** coved in bacon.

he claims to be all about libs not allowing people to have freedom yet supports a tyrannical Texas government that is the antithesis or small government.

he drapes himself in the flag of freedom yet runs to authoritarianism like a a child to his binky

 

I’m not surprised but it’s not a completely end all of gun control and as some of the concurring opinions say there still can be regulations of firearms. This ruling doesn’t exclude any of the measures currently being debated in the Senate nor does it exclude other regulation such as universal background checks or restrictions on capacity and type of weapon.

 

polls after polls after polls show a strong majority of people throughout America are in favor of gun reform and control.

so this is basically the exact opposite of what you say.

they’re attempting to protect a 220+ yr old law while ignoring the fact that the current people actually living today do t want what they e done.

it’s LITERALLY the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you say and a function of a dysfunctional government system.

all of which says nothing about the actual original meaning of the 2nd amendment… which was 100% about the ability to have an army to protect against wars, as there was no standing army before the war of 1812. I believe in fact original the word state in the second amendment was going to be nation or country until one (or more) of the “southern” delegates insisted on cha gong it to the word state cause they were scared that the slaves would rebel and they’d need tje 2nd amendment to then be able to call a “state army” to quell any rebellion.

mint we love our guns.

GUNS!!!!

 

I’ve read Federalist 29 and 46 and quote them often. They say repeatedly that a militia is one that is regulated and disciplined with a officers and a command and control structure.

Also to note the militia isn’t limited to fighting government. Washington used the militia to put down a citizens militia in the Whiskey Rebellion.

 

yes, 2A is a right anyone can exercise, like other constitutional rights

 

guns are the great gender equalizer

a tiny woman with a gun can kill even the strongest man

the NY law would deny women this

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vindicating-the-second-amendment-11656024307?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

The Supreme Court Vindicates the Second Amendment
A 6-3 majority recognizes a right to carry guns in public for self-defense.
By The Editorial Board
Updated June 23, 2022 7:44 pm ET

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling Thursday on gun rights boils down to this: The Second Amendment doesn’t disappear when you walk out your front door. Stated that way, it sounds obvious, but many appeals judges have disagreed. For a frustrating decade, the Supreme Court was too gun-shy to set them straight, but Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion was worth the wait.

***
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen challenged the Empire State’s regulations on carrying a firearm in public. Open carry in New York is banned. With certain exceptions, such as for judges, getting a permit to carry a handgun that’s concealed requires demonstrating “proper cause.” That has been interpreted to mean “a special need” for self-defense, beyond that of “the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

In other words, shopkeepers who must carry cash through high-crime neighborhoods are out of luck. But as Justice Thomas points out, the Constitution protects a right not only to “keep” but also to “bear” arms. “Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table,” he writes. “To confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.”

This does not mean urban America will soon resemble the Wild West. Forty-three states, Justice Thomas says, already have “shall issue” regimes, meaning carry permits are available to everyone who meets objective criteria. That process can be rigorous and might include fingerprinting, firearms training, background checks, and so forth. A concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, stresses that the Court is not calling such rules into question.

What’s unconstitutional is that six states—New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, California and Hawaii—offer residents no clear path to carry a gun to defend themselves. As Justice Thomas says: “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Those states can still regulate carry permits, but they can’t deny such permits to law-abiding citizens.

This is a landmark holding. In Heller (2008) the Court recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right. Then for a decade it stood by as appeals courts upheld gun restrictions that eroded Heller. Lower-court judges, Justice Thomas says, err when they try to balance state interests in gun laws against the burden on the Second Amendment. This forces judges to make empirical judgments, and he says it’s “inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny.”

To uphold a gun restriction, Justice Thomas says, the government must show that it is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” He then surveys the history of gun limitations before and after the Founding. “None of these historical limitations on the right to bear arms approach New York’s proper-cause requirement,” Justice Thomas concludes, “because none operated to prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from carrying arms in public for that purpose.”

He acknowledges a few counterexamples but says the weight of the evidence is against New York. This is the right originalist analysis: What did the Second Amendment mean to the people who passed it?

This rejection of a balancing test for regulations that trespass on the “core” of a constitutional right ought to discipline lower-court judges. And it has implications for other rights, not least campaign-finance restrictions that run afoul of the First Amendment.

***
Dissenting for the three liberals, Justice Stephen Breyer recounts grim statistics. “In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms,” he says. In his view, the majority “refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling.” Yet officials are far from shackled. They can strengthen background checks, as the U.S. Senate is poised to do. States can add red-flag laws. Prosecutors can make the effort to go after straw purchasers.

How high can the regulatory bar be raised for a carry permit? The Supreme Court might need to clarify if states like New York respond to Bruen by demanding a $5,000 fee and 1,000 hours of training. For now it’s enough that six Justices agree: States can’t tell Americans who fear for their safety that there’s no legal way they can carry a weapon for defense.

Appeared in the June 24, 2022, print edition as 'Vindicating the Second Amendment.'
​

 

wow. this is an embarrassment

You Won Your Gun Case. You’re Fired.
Kirkland & Ellis tells Paul Clement and a partner to dump their Second Amendment clients. They refuse and resign.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-wo...-fired-11656024233?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s

excerpt:

A 6-3 victory at the Supreme Court vindicating a constitutional right is usually cause for congratulations, but not these days at Kirkland & Ellis, the giant white-shoe law firm. The firm has rewarded partner Paul Clement for his triumph Thursday in the big New York gun-rights case (see nearby) by telling him to drop his gun clients or leave the firm.

As Mr. Clement and his litigation partner, Erin Murphy, explain nearby, they’re leaving the firm rather than dump their clients. That’s the honorable and ethical decision.

But it’s worth noting how extraordinary it is for a law firm to fire its victorious clients whose rights have been upheld by no fewer than six Justices. It’s as if the law firm representing Clarence Gideon had told him to get lost after the Supreme Court upheld his right to legal counsel in his famous 1963 case, Gideon v. Wainwright.

“Kirkland & Ellis announced today its decision to no longer represent clients with respect to matters involving the interpretation of the Second Amendment,” the firm said in a press release, without explanation. It added that Mr. Clement and Ms. Murphy “will be leaving the firm in order to continue their full range of existing representations.”
​

more at link

 

They can also allow one person to kill many others easily.

Firearms aren't just gender equalizers they are force multipliers.

 

more reporting on this here

Winning Lawyers in Supreme Court Gun Case Leave Firm
Partners Paul Clement and Erin Murphy depart Kirkland & Ellis after it says it won’t take any more Second Amendment cases

https://www.wsj.com/articles/winnin...case-leave-firm-11656026132?mod=djemalertNEWS

excerpt:

Discord over gun rights erupted within the law firm that secured Thursday’s Second Amendment victory at the Supreme Court, with Kirkland & Ellis LLP announcing shortly after the decision that it would no longer take firearms cases and that it was parting ways with the two star partners who won the case.

After a Kirkland news release praising Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration, and Erin Murphy, the two announced they were opening their own firm.

“Unfortunately, we were given a stark choice: either withdraw from ongoing representations or withdraw from the firm,” Mr. Clement said. “Anyone who knows us and our views regarding professional responsibility and client loyalty knows there was only one course open to us: We could not abandon ongoing representations just because a client’s position is unpopular in some circles.”

***
“Paul and Erin have been valued colleagues,” Jon Ballis, chairman of Kirkland’s executive committee, said in a release. “We wish them the best of luck in the future and we look forward to collaborating with them in the future in matters not involving the Second Amendment.”

Kirkland, one of the world’s largest law firms, declined to comment beyond its news release.

After recent mass shootings, other Kirkland clients began expressing reservations over the firm’s work for the gun movement, a person familiar with the matter said. Kirkland “started getting a lot of pressure post-Uvalde, hearing from several big-dollar clients that they were uncomfortable,” this person said. “Several partners agreed that they should drop that representation.”
​

more at the link

 

You are obviously not a Democrat

This is time to Quit More and whimper Harder


Rocket River

 

another piece on the Paul Clement removal

Paul Clement Leaves Kirkland & Ellis Amid A Dispute Over Gun Cases
Paul Clement and Erin Murphy will launch an appellate boutique, Clement Murphy, PLLC.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/paul-clement-leaves-kirkland-and