Thread: US Supreme Court decided today 2nd Amendment prevails in New York (and therefore every state)

The Supreme Court issued their decision today on the matter of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen.

This decision is not to be confused with the proposed law that is discussed in this Lounge thread:

https://www.goingyourownway.com/mgto...affects-16397/


From a Redstate article (which has a title that seemed to go for a cute word play but only confused me):

The Supreme Court has ruled that carrying a loaded firearm outside the home is a Constitutional right, and state laws that prevent citizens from doing so violate the 14th Amendment.

This case originates in New York, where possessing any firearm requires a license. A “restricted license” permits possession of a firearm inside your home and gives you the right to take the weapon outside the home for purposes of hunting or target shooting. To obtain this permit, the applicant has to show a “licensing officer,” usually a judge or police officer, that they have “good moral character,” no history of crime or mental illness, and that “no good cause exists for the denial of the license.” Carrying a weapon outside the home for self-defense requires an “unrestricted license.” To obtain that license, you must convince a “licensing officer” that “proper cause exists” for it to be issued. In either case, there is virtually no appeal possible of an adverse decision, and your right to keep and carry a firearm is subjected to the whim of a bureaucrat.

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court declared that exercising your right to carry a weapon for self-defense does not depend upon your ability to convince some petty bureaucrat that you have “proper cause.”


June 23, 2022 - Supreme Court Rules You Can't 'Bear' Arms Unless You Can Carry Them for Self-Defense

A just and proper ruling. Could anyone not see how subjective and arbitrary it would be to allow a varying cast of characters to "administer" the Second Amendment? Besides being unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by Unboxxed

The Supreme Court issued their decision today on the matter of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen.

This decision is not to be confused with the proposed law that is discussed in this Lounge thread:

https://www.goingyourownway.com/mgto...affects-16397/


From a Redstate article (which has a title that seemed to go for a cute word play but only confused me):



A just and proper ruling. Could anyone not see how subjective and arbitrary it would be to allow a varying cast of characters to "administer" the Second Amendment? Besides being unconstitutional?

Rights aren't to be "administered" when they are they become a privilege to the privelaged.

When they come to take your guns, I say give them the bullets first.

I love how Biden said the Second Amendment wasn't absolute. He said when it was passed you couldn't own a canon. Actually boats that were under attack asked if they could have canons and they were told yes you can. But if Amendments aren't absolute, I say the 16th Amendment isn't absolute and we get rid of it.

Love how Judge Alito was compelled to respond to the dissenting judges for their irrationality:

Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what we have actually held.

...

because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.

...

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?


The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home?

...

The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home.

...

I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.

June 23, 2022 - Alito Takes a Blow Torch to Liberal Justices' Dissent

I just accidentally saw a clip of Kamala Harris saying this decision today goes against the Constitution of the United States.

The most incompetent Vice President of the United States dares to present that she is wiser about the Constitution than the Supreme Court!

I say accidentally because I usually mute my browser tab's audio anytime she goes to speak. There is nothing intelligent from this woman, ever.

Not a fan of randos walking about with guns, myself, and I'm glad my country doesn't have anything like the second amendment. However, this decision is clearly correct. It's quite extraordinary that a person can say that there's no right to go about armed, when the US constitution specifically protects it; and at the same time insist that there's a right to get an abortion, which that same constitution never mentions (and the very idea of which would have horrified the dudes that wrote it).

Originally Posted by Mr Wombat

Not a fan of randos walking about with guns, myself, and I'm glad my country doesn't have anything like the second amendment. However, this decision is clearly correct. It's quite extraordinary that a person can say that there's no right to go about armed, when the US constitution specifically protects it; and at the same time insist that there's a right to get an abortion, which that same constitution never mentions (and the very idea of which would have horrified the dudes that wrote it).

I think states with fireworks stores next to gun shops are the best states on earth! I remember when one could buy a handgun at a fee market no questions asked, dig a little deeper you could find full-auto selectors, C-4, and other goodies that got around.

I got my bag of fireworks and might pop off a couple rounds with the neighbors. So much for fireworks prohibition and gun control, around here, you do whatever the fuck want!

Originally Posted by Mr Wombat

Not a fan of randos walking about with guns, myself, and I'm glad my country doesn't have anything like the second amendment. However, this decision is clearly correct. It's quite extraordinary that a person can say that there's no right to go about armed, when the US constitution specifically protects it; and at the same time insist that there's a right to get an abortion, which that same constitution never mentions (and the very idea of which would have horrified the dudes that wrote it).

Aussies with guns would not be a good thing. Although we are heading there anyway. Shootings are on the increase, especially drive by style. Stabbings have also become popular. It's all Multi Cult driven as traditionally, Aussies are more the fist fight and brawl type then out and out wanting to kill one another.

Originally Posted by Kryptic

Aussies with guns would not be a good thing. Although we are heading there anyway. Shootings are on the increase, especially drive by style. Stabbings have also become popular. It's all Multi Cult driven as traditionally, Aussies are more the fist fight and brawl type then out and out wanting to kill one another.

Not real Australians. Over half of all Australians are not actually Australians. It's over - we are defeated. More reason to GYOW.

I still think the Kiwis are the pinnacle of down under failures! They are the new Gestapo of state rules everything! At least you guys in Oz have a whole continent to get lost on, imagine being stuck on an island of manhating .gov glorifiers that goose-step to their superiors! The only hope for Kiwis is the same hope for Californians, and that's a MAJIOR EARTH QUAKE then slip beneath the waves!

On the eve of Independence Day in America, I content myself with the knowledge that one of my forefathers probably shot one of Spooky's forefathers.

I'm out. Peace.
- Owen, 07.03.2022