1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

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

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Reeko, Jun 23, 2022.

  1. Reeko

    Reeko Secretary of Defense for the Jabari Tribe
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34,673
    Likes Received:
    96,671
    The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home, issuing a major decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

    The 6-3 ruling was the court’s second important decision on the right to “keep and bear arms.” In a landmark 2008 decision, the court said for the first time that the amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms, although the decision was limited to keeping guns at home for self-defense.

    The case involved a New York law that required showing a special need to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. The state bans carrying handguns openly, but it allows residents to apply for licenses to carry them concealed.

    The law at issue said, however, that permits could be granted only to applicants who demonstrated some special need — a requirement that went beyond a general desire for self-protection.

    Gun owners in the state sued, contending that the requirement made it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to get the necessary license. They argued that the law turned the Second Amendment into a limited privilege, not a constitutional right.

    The court agreed with the challengers and struck down the heightened requirement.

    The ruling could affect the ability of state and local governments to impose a wide variety of firearms regulations. All states allow carrying concealed guns in public, although many require state-issued permits.

    The decision casts doubt on laws similar to New York’s in several other states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, which provide local officials with more discretion to deny requests for permits.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna17721
     
    Nook, cml750 and Astrodome like this.
  2. DaDakota

    DaDakota Never Trump
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    115,769
    Likes Received:
    23,490
    The dumb ****ERY of the right and their bullshit interpretation of the 2A is ridiculous.

    DD
     
  3. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Trust the process
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    54,646
    Likes Received:
    78,959
  4. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    34,577
    Likes Received:
    15,793
    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.
     
    edwardc and deb4rockets like this.
  5. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,418
    Likes Received:
    2,258
    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.
     
  6. HTM

    HTM Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    5,482
    Likes Received:
    3,844
    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?
     
  7. SamFisher

    SamFisher Virtuous

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    53,516
    Likes Received:
    28,016
    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.
     
    Rocket River, Nook, DaDakota and 7 others like this.
  8. ROCKSS

    ROCKSS Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 1999
    Messages:
    2,953
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    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
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  9. Ubiquitin

    Ubiquitin Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    13,670
    Likes Received:
    7,257
    So does this mean anyone can buy a handgun now? Or just that anyone can conceal carry?
     
  10. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Trust the process
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    54,646
    Likes Received:
    78,959
    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
     
    #10 Os Trigonum, Jun 23, 2022
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2022
  11. ROCKSS

    ROCKSS Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 1999
    Messages:
    2,953
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    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
     
  12. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Trust the process
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    54,646
    Likes Received:
    78,959
    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),"
     
    #12 Os Trigonum, Jun 23, 2022
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2022
    Nook and FranchiseBlade like this.
  13. krosfyah

    krosfyah Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    811
    Protecting guns is more important than protecting children.

    History is clear: More guns = more gun violence.
     
    Nook, ROCKSS, deb4rockets and 2 others like this.
  14. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    34,577
    Likes Received:
    15,793
    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.
     
    ROCKSS likes this.
  15. Ubiquitin

    Ubiquitin Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    13,670
    Likes Received:
    7,257
    Just as RBG intended.
     
    SamFisher likes this.
  16. txtony

    txtony Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,575
    Likes Received:
    12,230
    Originalism at its finest.
     
  17. SamFisher

    SamFisher Virtuous

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    53,516
    Likes Received:
    28,016
    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
     
    Andre0087 likes this.
  18. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Trust the process
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    54,646
    Likes Received:
    78,959
    awful lot of words there, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing :rolleyes:
     
  19. tallanvor

    tallanvor Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    14,810
    Likes Received:
    4,267


    Havent read breyer's dissent , but it sounds like a pile of ****. What relevance would gun stats have in interpretting the law?
     
  20. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    26,600
    Likes Received:
    12,007
    Why even write an opinion at this point?
     
    calurker, Andre0087 and Nook like this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now