Break news supreme court overturns New York conceal carry law.

[HandleTheTruth]

I agree with this though. So.

I don't have an article on it yet.

Article added by Bestest! Mod Zincwarrior to comply with rules:

U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, strikes down New York law

The Supreme Court on Thursday declared for the first time that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, handing a landmark victory to gun rights advocates in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence.

www.reuters.com

 

[protectionist]

Supreme Court overturns New York law on carrying concealed weapons

The Supreme Court has struck down New York’s century-old law restricting the carrying of concealed firearms, its first major Second Amendment decision in more than a decade and a ruling that…

nypost.com

Great news. New York will benefit from this as criminals will now have to think twice about busting in previously vulnerable targets, now hardened by ordinary New Yorkers carrying guns.

Also, CCW license holders from other states, will now be able to visit New York and carry their guns.

 

[marvin martian]

Supreme Court overturns New York law on carrying concealed weapons

The Supreme Court has struck down New York’s century-old law restricting the carrying of concealed firearms, its first major Second Amendment decision in more than a decade and a ruling that…

nypost.com

Great news. New York will benefit from this as criminals will now have to think twice about busting in previously vulnerable targets, now hardened by ordinary New Yorkers carrying guns.

Also, CCW license holders from other states, will now be able to visit New York and carry their guns.

This is great news. NY can finally join the majority of states that don't infringe on their citizens' civil rights.

 

[shockedcanadian]

The dog whistle issue is now going to be pushed by CNN, MSNBC and the Dems, they didn't get the abortion ruling to scream from the hilltops so this will have to do.

 

[marvin martian]

The dog whistle issue is now going to be pushed by CNN, MSNBC and the Dems, they didn't get the abortion ruling to scream from the hilltops so this will have to do.

Thank God for justices like Clarence Thomas, who defend our civil rights against the fascists.

 

[protectionist]

The Post article says >> "City and state officials have expressed fear that striking down the law would lead to more people carrying weapons in public even as gun violence has surged amid the COVID-19 pandemic."

These idiot New York liberals, instead of expressing fear, should be delighted that these "more people carrying weapons in public" will lower crime numbers. Numbers that have been unecessarily high, due to their fearful stupidity.

 

[task0778]

The Supreme Court Thursday ruled 6-3 that New York’s regulations that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun were unconstitutionally restrictive, and that it should be easier to obtain such a license.

The existing standard required an applicant to show "proper cause" for seeking a license, and allowed New York officials to exercise discretion in determining whether a person has shown a good enough reason for needing to carry a firearm. Stating that one wished to protect themselves or their property was not enough.

"In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court's opinion. "Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution."

Supreme Court gun decision shoots down NY rule that set high bar for concealed carry licenses

The Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, ruling on New York's regulations for concealed carry permits.

www.foxnews.com

However, the justices did seem to agree that the state could restrict concealed guns in certain places.

 

[Canon Shooter]

This is great news for New Yorkers!

 

[sealybobo]

The Supreme Court Thursday ruled 6-3 that New York’s regulations that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun were unconstitutionally restrictive, and that it should be easier to obtain such a license.

The existing standard required an applicant to show "proper cause" for seeking a license, and allowed New York officials to exercise discretion in determining whether a person has shown a good enough reason for needing to carry a firearm. Stating that one wished to protect themselves or their property was not enough.

"In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court's opinion. "Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution."

Supreme Court gun decision shoots down NY rule that set high bar for concealed carry licenses

The Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, ruling on New York's regulations for concealed carry permits.

www.foxnews.com

However, the justices did seem to agree that the state could restrict concealed guns in certain places.

Nice to see the cons on the court legislating from the bench.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I agree with this though. So.

I don't have an article on it yet.

Article added by Bestest! Mod Zincwarrior to comply with rules:

U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, strikes down New York law

The Supreme Court on Thursday declared for the first time that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, handing a landmark victory to gun rights advocates in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence.

www.reuters.com

I called the department a few minutes ago, and was told, no, you cannot ask for applications yet.


We'll see what roadblocks they put up.

 

[Rogue AI]

Nice to see the cons on the court legislating from the bench.

Striking down unconstitutional garbage laws is the opposite of legislating.

 

[sealybobo]

Striking down unconstitutional garbage laws is the opposite of legislating.

Your idea of what is and isn't constitutional is a lot different than most people's. You are a wacko. Remember that.

 

[Flash]

Your idea of what is and isn't constitutional is a lot different than most people's. You are a wacko. Remember that.

You stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats hardly know how to spell Constitution no less what is in it.

You should really weep Moon Bat.

In the opinion it reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, the courts must use a Constitutional approach to gun cases instead of a lower level of scrutiny and that the Second covers modern weapons.

There goes your stupid AWB and magazine bans.


Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted).

Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts,

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your idea of what is and isn't constitutional is a lot different than most people's. You are a wacko. Remember that.

Are you claiming that the Court erred?

 

[sealybobo]

Are you claiming that the Court erred?

I may as well block you. I have zero respect for you and have zero interest in engaging with a liar like yourself.

 

[Billy_Bob]

GREAT NEWS... Now we have to stop the illegal denial of AR15 (556) ammunition supplies.

 

[scruffy]

Excellent.

This would never have happened with Garland on the bench.

 

[martybegan]

Nice to see the cons on the court legislating from the bench.

How is this against the 2nd and 14th amendments?

 

[martybegan]

I may as well block you. I have zero respect for you and have zero interest in engaging with a liar like yourself.

Run away little girl, run away.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats hardly know how to spell Constitution no less what is in it.

You should really weep Moon Bat.

In the opinion it reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, the courts must use a Constitutional approach to gun cases instead of a lower level of scrutiny and that the Second covers modern weapons.

There goes your stupid AWB and magazine bans.


Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted).

Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts,

This should also stop the ammunition ban that Biden wants to employ as well..