National Big 2A win today at US Supreme Court

[Oro]

Didn't read every post, but do you think sending threats, showing up at judges homes or a would be assassin might have swayed some judge's opinions a little??
...

No, not in the least. Because this was decided and drafted well before that, same as Dobbs. That was all political theater for one party's benefit, that and nothing else.

 

[Catfishmoon]

Great news here, more far reaching then most here realize but that will come soon enough!

This is correct.
When I have watched legal experts from the left this morning who have read the ruling, even they proclaim this is a game changer regarding the 2A and existing laws in America.
Now is much harder to deny 2A rights, comparable to trying to deny 1A.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Your words are very encouraging and I certainly hope come to fruition. I only hope the SC justices look at the next cases without a slanted eye and just straight forward reasoning.

I'm getting the strong feeling that this new SCOTUS has the back bone, and more importantly, is very carefully setting the stage for a full accounting of the 2nd, that they are lining up enough specific cases that allow very broad reaching rulings that effectively shut down the anti 2nd side and make it all impossible to challenge in the future! I see them forcing the Several States to attempt am Convention of States to try and overturn the 2nd, or somehow re write it to strip it of it's powers! We all know the lefties will never stop, so that's their only option, and it's a final Hail Mary, getting 34 states to sign on for a convention of states against the 2nd will never happen, effectively sealing the anti 2nd fate forever!

For those who would say this is all fluff and feel good, have a good look at the cases lined up before the court this year and in to next, you will see a very carefully chosen path forward, hell even the courts expected ruling on Roe V Wade sets president for how that body will likely rule, and we now have several cases that show a Textual/Historical ruling where the court rules on the exact writings and specific wording of the Constitution strictly As Written, none of this living document bullsh!t!

 

[tkdguy]

Does this mean people can now carry an AR 15 in public and in most states?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

"New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Kinda weak, Reverse & Remand rather than an explicit "now listen here you f***ing morons this is what you will do" only invites further mischief from NY, CA etc. tinkering to cling to their Arbitrary/Capricious (usually No-)Issue until it finally gets shoved up their arses so hard they puke brown.

No, this is the equivalent of handing a hung over sailor who puked all over the bunk area last night a bucket and a mop and saying, "Now clean it up!"

 

[Ura-Ki]

Does this mean people can now carry an AR 15 in public and in most states?

Technically, we have always had the right, what we have also had are local county/State restrictions against OPEN CARRY, which is not strictly legal, but also not exactly illegal ether! If we apply the high courts recent rulings, there is strong evidence to support: Restrictions on Open Carry are an unlawful infringement, and their by illegal for any state to uphold! This of course opens the door to the discussion of how will the general Sheeple accept this as completely lawful? I expect to see lots of pushback, but ultimately, we still win back our rights!

 

[Ura-Ki]

Re: Oregon's I.P. 17 and 18, I should imagine the state is taking a very close look at things now, knowing full well the serious pushback not only from OryGunions, but also the D.O.J. it's likely the States A.G will be forced to round file it, or more likely one of the Pro 2nd orgs files a challenge to the states Supreme Court, who will also have to answer strict scrutiny in the face of this new ruling from the High Court! I honestly don't see these I.P.s lasting through the summer, let alone making it to the ballots!

 

[Diamondback]

Re: Oregon's I.P. 17 and 18, I should imagine the state is taking a very close look at things now, knowing full well the serious pushback not only from OryGunions, but also the D.O.J. it's likely the States A.G will be forced to round file it, or more likely one of the Pro 2nd orgs files a challenge to the states Supreme Court, who will also have to answer strict scrutiny in the face of this new ruling from the High Court! I honestly don't see these I.P.s lasting through the summer, let alone making it to the ballots!

Why would Goosestep Garland oppose IP17?

 

[Ura-Ki]

Why would Goosestep Garland oppose IP17?

Even Garland cannot stand in the way on this!

 

[Oro]

I'm getting the strong feeling that this new SCOTUS has the back bone, and more importantly, is very carefully setting the stage for a full accounting of the 2nd, that they are lining up enough specific cases that allow very broad reaching rulings ...

That is exactly right, but this is basically the END of the process that started in 2005-ish. Heller was decided in 2008 and I can't recall exactly when they started the process - but it was years earlier.

I think someone mentioned it above already, I'll recap fast:
- Heller was the start - 1) 2A is an individual right, not state or group right.
- Then McDonald - 2) incorporated it against the states (meaning Heller applied everywhere, not just DC.
- Now NYSRPA, 3) Absolute right, no means-testing to blend in government/interest groups' wishes.

So while there's going to be cases to overturn, all the boxes are checked and curbs on government power are laid out plainly. It was a three-part process to nail down the history and law so there was no wiggle-room.

... or more likely one of the Pro 2nd orgs files a challenge to the states Supreme Court, who will also have to answer strict scrutiny in the face of this new ruling from the High Court! I honestly don't see these I.P.s lasting through the summer, let alone making it to the ballots!

Probably one of these two - I'm no expert but either AG tells them to can it and they do, or it's challenged. I can't imagine it seeing the ballot.

 

[cigars]

Technically, we have always had the right, what we have also had are local county/State restrictions against OPEN CARRY, which is not strictly legal, but also not exactly illegal ether! If we apply the high courts recent rulings, there is strong evidence to support: Restrictions on Open Carry are an unlawful infringement, and their by illegal for any state to uphold! This of course opens the door to the discussion of how will the general Sheeple accept this as completely lawful? I expect to see lots of pushback, but ultimately, we still win back our rights!

What will be interesting to see is how NY will try and weasel around this ruling. They are bound and determined to keep guns only in criminals hands. Their governor just about popped a vein in her head whining about it in her press conference immediately after the ruling.

 

[Ura-Ki]

What will be interesting to see is how NY will try and weasel around this ruling. They are bound and determined to keep guns only in criminals hands. Their governor just about popped a vein in her head whining about it in her press conference immediately after the ruling.

I don't think it's gonna matter now, not with such a strict ruling, and to challenge it would put her in a very vulnerable spot for a forced resignation, loss of confidence vote, or recall effort! Gonna be fun to watch! I wanna see Oregon Washington, and Calis State A.G.s Squirming now!

 

[RicInOR]

President

Biden "Deeply Disappointed" In SCOTUS Ruling On Open Carry

"This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all."

I am pretty sure that the SCOTUS says what is and what is not in the Constitution.



Here's the president's statement:

I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Since 1911, the State of New York has required individuals who would like to carry a concealed weapon in public to show a need to do so for the purpose of self-defense and to acquire a license. More than a century later, the United States Supreme Court has chosen to strike down New York's long-established authority to protect its citizens. This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.
In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans. I remain committed to doing everything in my power to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer. I have already taken more executive actions to reduce gun violence than any other President during their first year in office, and I will continue to do all that I can to protect Americans from gun violence.
I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence. As the late Justice Scalia recognized, the Second Amendment is not absolute. For centuries, states have regulated who may purchase or possess weapons, the types of weapons they may use, and the places they may carry those weapons. And the courts have upheld these regulations.
I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety. Lives are on the line.

 

[sobo]

President

Biden "Deeply Disappointed" In SCOTUS Ruling On Open Carry

I am "deeply disappointed" in the manner in which Joe BiteMe (or whoever's hand is stuck up his sockpuppetass) is running the country.
Why don't you focus on fixing that phuq-up that you so expertly created, eh Brandon?

#FJB

 

[slimmer13]

Here's the mayor of NYs reaction.

 

[Oro]

I don't think it's gonna matter now, not with such a strict ruling, ...

Complete aside, but I've wanted to ask for a while (based on your sig line): Have you read Geo. MacDonald Fraser's books?

 

[RicInOR]

Americans Panic-Searched Buying Guns After Biden Threatens More Gun Control

 

[RicInOR]

If you don't know of him, Eugene is important when it comes to writing about the law.

I know some of you care that this is on Reason - but they are just the platform-host for Eugene.

EUGENE VOLOKH HAS thoughts on how courts are likely to evaluate gun regulations after Bruen.

I clipped and left out quite a bit -- recommend to RTWT

[1.] The right to keep and bear arms generally includes the right to have arms available for self-defense, whether at home or outside the home.

[2.] This right can be limited to the extent that there is a historical tradition of limitation—

[3.] The right can also be limited by regulations that impose only a modest burden on law-abiding people's ability to defend themselves.

[4.] But if a law substantially burdens the right without having sufficient historical support, it can't then be upheld under "intermediate scrutiny," "strict scrutiny," or a similar test.

[5.] In particular, the Court signaled that some specific kinds of restrictions are constitutional:

[a.] Restrictions on carrying in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings":​

[b.] Bans on concealed carry but only if open carry is allowed:​

[c.] As noted above, nondiscretionary licensing restrictions,​

[d.] Restrictions on gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill:​

[e.] Restrictions on machineguns and other "dangerous and unusual" weapons—which probably means unusually dangerous weapons:​

[f.] "[L]aws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"​

[6.] Much of course remains unresolved—

[a.] Does the right kick in at age 18 (the general age of majority in the U.S. today) or at age 21 (the age of majority through most of American history)?​

[b.] Where would one place bars, restaurants that sell alcohol, or even stores that sell alcohol for off-premises consumption?​

[c.] What does all this mean for "red flag" laws?​

#RedFlag

 

[RobMa]

A few years from now, when the same old tired predictions of "blood in the streets" and "wild wild west" don't come to fruition, no one will admit they were wrong. They will be busy breathlessly pushing the latest outrageous "emergency" that absolutely must be dealt with right this minute or you are literally Hitler.

They are trying it now with the "whispers" of a coming second "greater" pandemic!!!
Seriously, none on the left have any true moral values......

 

[RicInOR]

Guns and Judicial Protection of Constitutional Rights that Put Lives at Risk

Justice Breyer and others argue that gun regulations deserve special judicial deference because Second Amendment rights create risks to life. But the same is true of many other constitutional rights.

ILYA SOMIN