Merged: SC Gun decision/Supreme Court loosens gun laws

[Armitage72]

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has just ruled that everyone has the right to carry a firearm in public, striking down a NY State law that required someone to show "proper cause" to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
I'm sure that will make things much better.

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has just ruled that everyone has the right to carry a firearm in public, striking down a NY State law that required someone to show "proper cause" to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
I'm sure that will make things much better.

I think we'll have to make this thread a Sticky.

[Bob001]

The Supremes throw out NY law limiting concealed carry permits.

Quote:

The Supreme Court said Thursday that Americans generally have a right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, striking down a New York law requiring a special need for such a permit and putting at risk similar laws in five other states.
....
“The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Thomas wrote, saying New York’s requirement of a specific need to carry a weapon violates that right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mp-supporters/

Posted without comment 'cause I'm speechless -- but not surprised.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has just ruled that everyone has the right to carry a firearm in public, striking down a NY State law that required someone to show "proper cause" to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
I'm sure that will make things much better.

Of course. An armed society is a polite society. Or so I read a few decades ago. I mean, no more road rage 'cause the other party might come out blasting. No more domestic violence 'cause the wife is packin' heat. No more armed store robberies or home invasions or car jackings. Why, even gangbangers will be hesitant to do drive-by hits 'cause of all those strapped citizens.

The gun is the magic cure for gun violence!

[theprestige]

If the constitution says there is a general right to carry, the answer is to change the constitution, not ignore it.

[bigred]

I'm speechless and surprised. There was all this talk of them doing something about gun control in the wake of all the mass shootings....and they go in the opposite direction? ??

[alfaniner]

The Wild Wild East Coast.

Insane.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

The Wild Wild East Coast.

Insane.

Nonsense, there was far stricter gun control in the old west than the constitution currently supports. I mean imagine if the shoot out at the OK corral happened today clearly the law enforcement would be enforcing an unconstitutional gun ban. That is why the Earps are hated by all gun loving americans.

[Captain_Swoop]

Does this mean that similar laws in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland will also have to go?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

If the constitution says there is a general right to carry, the answer is to change the constitution, not ignore it.

Only since 2008.

Apparently, you can continually ignore until the supreme court changes.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Nonsense, there was far stricter gun control in the old west than the constitution currently supports. I mean imagine if the shoot out at the OK corral happened today clearly the law enforcement would be enforcing an unconstitutional gun ban. That is why the Earps are hated by all gun loving americans.

I'm not sure that the practice of frontier lawmen in the old west is necessarily a model of sticking to the letter of anything. That said, wasn't Arizona a territory then? Would the 2nd amendment have applied there?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

If the constitution says there is a general right to carry, the answer is to change the constitution, not ignore it.

For most of U.S. history, that is not how the Constitution has been interpreted.

Right-wing Nixon appointee Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the history of the 2nd Amendment, and supported regulation comparable to the regulation of automobiles.

Quote:

Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."

https://warrenburger.blogspot.com/

Also, from Justice Burger:

Quote:

[The claim of an individual’s right to own firearms] is “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” –

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/th...nt-is-a-fraud/

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

If the constitution says there is a general right to carry, the answer is to change the constitution, not ignore it.

If you have the popular support necessary to change the Constitution, you don't need to change the Constitution. Look at how long it's been since something really significant was done that way. You change the Constitution now by reading new things into it. Changing the Constitution would increase the power and relevance of the States, reinterpreting the Constitution keeps the power in DC. Tough choice.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Does this mean that similar laws in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland will also have to go?

The article says "The ruling jeopardises similar restrictions in other states and expands gun rights."

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I'm not sure that the practice of frontier lawmen in the old west is necessarily a model of sticking to the letter of anything. That said, wasn't Arizona a territory then? Would the 2nd amendment have applied there?

Firearms, particularly handguns, were subject to tighter regulation than today in almost all states up until the NRA was taken over by loons in the 1970s. As recently as 1968, the NRA supported certain gun control laws. Few people across the political spectrum would have supported the "must issue" concealed carry laws that 40+ states have since adopted.

[The Great Zaganza]

State's Rights mean anything?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

State's Rights mean anything?

In theory, or in practice?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

State's Rights mean anything?

Rarely anything good and it's never applied consistently.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by bigred

I'm speechless and surprised. There was all this talk of them doing something about gun control in the wake of all the mass shootings....and they go in the opposite direction? ??

I don't think anyone was expecting the Supreme Court to "do something about it", that's not their function. It's Congress that can do something about it.

I'm not a fan of the current crop of Supremes and their decisions, but this isn't the outrage some want to make it.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I'm not a fan of the current crop of Supremes and their decisions, but this isn't the outrage some want to make it.

It's a bit hypocritical, with their upcoming Roe and it's "not an enumerated right" decision.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

It's a bit hypocritical, with their upcoming Roe and it's "not an enumerated right" decision.

Which is why a sensible legislature would go ahead and openly and clearly codify precisely what the people want to have, rather than leaving centuries-old oldtimey speak for a bunch of bastards to interpret as they please with no consequences for screwing it up. But I don't see that happening any time soon because too many people derive power from endless fighting rather than solving problems.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

It's a bit hypocritical, with their upcoming Roe and it's "not an enumerated right" decision.

Given that the right to keep and bear arms is actually one of those enumerated rights, I'm not sure where you see the hypocrisy.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has just ruled that everyone has the right to carry a firearm in public, striking down a NY State law that required someone to show "proper cause" to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
I'm sure that will make things much better.

The cops should love it, because it will give them all the more reason to suspect that their victims are armed.

[Beelzebuddy]

What I wonder is why states haven't leaned on "well-regulated militia." It seems like a pretty big part of the clause. Got a gun, huh? What's your unit? How often do you drill? What safety training do you do? When was your last militia certification? Don't have all that, then you don't got a gun, now do you?

It's nothing we don't already ask of anyone who gets behind a wheel.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Given that the right to keep and bear arms is actually one of those enumerated rights, I'm not sure where you see the hypocrisy.

Pretty sure "concealed carry" isn't referenced in the Constitution any more than "abortion" is.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Which is why a sensible legislature would go ahead and openly and clearly codify precisely what the people want to have, rather than leaving centuries-old oldtimey speak for a bunch of bastards to interpret as they please with no consequences for screwing it up. But I don't see that happening any time soon because too many people derive power from endless fighting rather than solving problems.

Wow! I agree with this 100%. The other side of it is that if they enact something, it isn't going to be "what the people want". Most people's views are really not important on issues like this.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Pretty sure "concealed carry" isn't referenced in the Constitution any more than "abortion" is.

I bet if you conceal-carried a bunch of fetuses you'd get in a lot of trouble.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I bet if you conceal-carried a bunch of fetuses you'd get in a lot of trouble.

Aren't most fetuses conceal-carried?

[Tero]

What is this BS about tradition that our gun practices have to conform to? The abortion and gun rulings seem to go deep into tradition. What legal basis can that have? If you have to conform to tradition, how can anything change? If coins were made of silver then, do they have to be made of silver now?

And we did not marry gay couples prior to the current century, why should we marry them now?

[Upchurch]

If we were true originalists, the 2nd amendment would only apply to what the founders understood arms to be: blunt objects, bladed objects, and black-powder guns. Maybe cannons.

Amirite?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by theprestige

If the constitution says there is a general right to carry, the answer is to change the constitution, not ignore it.

If is doing a lot of work there.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

If we were true originalists, the 2nd amendment would only apply to what the founders understood arms to be: blunt objects, bladed objects, and black-powder guns. Maybe cannons.

Amirite?

And puckle guns, the first amendment doesn't apply to digital communications, and any right to contraception or abortion would be restricted to methods available in the 18th century.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Given that the right to keep and bear arms is actually one of those enumerated rights, I'm not sure where you see the hypocrisy.

"bear Arms" explicitly means displaying them openly.

The activist right-wing SC Judges once again pretend they know more about the Constitution than the people who wrote it.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

And puckle guns, the first amendment doesn't apply to digital communications, and any right to contraception or abortion would be restricted to methods available in the 18th century.

Yep. Originalists are the legal version of the Amish, except without the respect for others.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has just ruled that everyone has the right to carry a firearm in public, striking down a NY State law that required someone to show "proper cause" to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
I'm sure that will make things much better.

And another decision that seems to bear no relation to what the 2nd amendment actually said about the right to bear arms. I would compare it to the wild west, but they probably had stronger gun controls then than now.

[The Great Zaganza]

I suggest New York tells the SC: "you made your decision; now let's see how you enforce it!"

[Tero]

The pattern continues. State rights are above all, except with guns. Abortions can be run by states, soon gay marriage can be banned by states.

Global warming? State issue. There is no tradition of treating global warming. In colonial days coal and cellulose were good. Burn as much as you can. Oil? that's a problem. But it's just liquid coal!

[Cain]

Imagine living in a country where you have a right to health care instead of a right to own and carry pistols, the sort of communist ****-hole where people say "aboot."

[Armitage72]

They also just reduced the ability to enforce Miranda Rights.

Quote:

The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.

[bruto]

I think it extremely clever of the founding fathers to hide the word "concealed" so well in the second amendment that it took over two hundred years to find it.