Break news supreme court overturns New York conceal carry law.

[PoliticalChic]

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

I got it. You're tired of getting pulverized.

Go right ahead.

 

[Flash]

Excellent.

This would never have happened with Garland on the bench.

God bless Trump and Justice Thomas!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Lambda Legal Reacts After Supreme Court Strikes Down New York’s Gun Law

“The Court’s distorted understanding, of the Second Amendment will only result in more Uvaldes, more Buffalos, more Pulse nightclubs, and more children, people of color, and LGBTQ people, especially transgender women of color, targeted, shot, and killed.”

www.lambdalegal.org

Lambda Legal Counsel Omar Gonzalez-Pagan issued the following statement:
“It is unconscionable and dangerous for the Supreme Court to strike down a reasonable gun law regulating the ability to conceal carry firearms, such as New York State’s law, as the country staggers from yet multiple mass shooting such as the one in Uvalde, Texas that claimed the lives of 19 elementary schoolchildren and the one in Buffalo that was motivated by racial hatred.

“The facile assertion that ‘the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is with a good man with a gun’ holds no water, as the tragedy in Uvalde clearly demonstrates. The Court’s distorted understanding of the Second Amendment can only result in more Uvaldes, more Buffalos, more Pulse nightclubs, and more children, people of color, and LGBTQ people, especially transgender women of color, targeted, shot, and killed."

 

[2aguy]

Lambda Legal Reacts After Supreme Court Strikes Down New York’s Gun Law

“The Court’s distorted understanding, of the Second Amendment will only result in more Uvaldes, more Buffalos, more Pulse nightclubs, and more children, people of color, and LGBTQ people, especially transgender women of color, targeted, shot, and killed.”

www.lambdalegal.org

I like how he uses Uvalde where 19 cops with body armor, rifles and shields, stood by and did nothing...while in West Virginia, a private citizen, with her concealed carry pistol...not a cop, not a SEAL, stopped another mass public shooter also armed with an AR-15 rifle, in the same week..............

West Virginia mass shooting stopped...

People like this West Virginia woman who stopped what could have become a mass shooting just a day after Uvalde.

Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston.
Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday near the Vista View Apartment complex. No injuries were reported from those at the party.
Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed.
“Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,” Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett said.
Officers did not go into detail, but said Butler did have an extensive criminal history.

West Virginia armed citizen stops potential mass shooting
=======

 

[JGalt]

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

Shall not be infringed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I like how he uses Uvalde where 19 cops with body armor, rifles and shields, stood by and did nothing...while in West Virginia, a private citizen, with her concealed carry pistol...not a cop, not a SEAL, stopped another mass public shooter also armed with an AR-15 rifle, in the same week..............

West Virginia mass shooting stopped...

People like this West Virginia woman who stopped what could have become a mass shooting just a day after Uvalde.

Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston.
Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday near the Vista View Apartment complex. No injuries were reported from those at the party.
Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed.
“Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,” Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett said.
Officers did not go into detail, but said Butler did have an extensive criminal history.

West Virginia armed citizen stops potential mass shooting
=======

Yes well , we will be keeping a tally of how many shoot outs at high noon, and road rage killings there are vs. the good guy with a gun stopping a crime.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lambda Legal Reacts After Supreme Court Strikes Down New York’s Gun Law

“The Court’s distorted understanding, of the Second Amendment will only result in more Uvaldes, more Buffalos, more Pulse nightclubs, and more children, people of color, and LGBTQ people, especially transgender women of color, targeted, shot, and killed.”

www.lambdalegal.org

Amazing, I've never found you to be correct about anything....starting with that oxymoron of an avi.


See if this helps:


As there is no end to the sort of mayhem under Democrat gun laws, and clearly gun restrictions are based on
the hatred of normal, law-abiding citizens.....
...perhaps we should simply do the opposite or anything Democrats order.


It was tried here......and seems to work.


"Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law


KENNESAW, Georgia (Reuters) - The Virginia Tech killings have set off calls for tighter U.S. gun laws but anyone wanting to know why those demands likely will make little headway should visit Kennesaw, a town where owning a gun is both popular and mandatory.
... it passed a gun ordinance in 1982 that required all heads of a household to own a firearm and ammunition.


The Kennesaw law has endured as the town’s population has swelled to about 30,000 from 5,000 in 1982.

“When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then,” said police Lt. Craig Graydon. “We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.

Residents say they are comfortable with the image the gun law projects on the city as a bastion of gun freedom."

Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law
... killings have set off calls for tighter U.S. gun laws but anyone wanting to know why those demands likely will make little headway should visit Kennesaw, a town where owning a gun is both popular and mandatory.

www.reuters.com




The town has grown to 34,000....folks must agree with the gun law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A well regulated militia

Gads, you're a moron.

I'd suggest you stick to words you understand, but then you'd be mute.



Militia.


. “…well regulated militia…” Consider the sentence “Being a fisherman, Joe needs a boat.” Does this mean that Joe should only buy a boat if he fishes for a living? The reference to a militia is a reason why the people “When the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1858 (Legal scholar and law professor at Columbia College)

In the Constitution, Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” by enacting copyright and patent laws (Article 1, Section 8). Would you argue that every copyright work or patented invention must promote scientific progress and useful arts?



1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.



George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)



The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)



The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.



Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)



[10 U.S. Code § 311 - Exchange of defense personnel between United States and friendly foreign countries: authority]

have a right to arms, but it is not the only reason.



b. “…well-regulated…” Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground)

 

[Billy_Bob]

A well regulated militia

This doesn't mean what you think it does... The "militia" was we the people. "Well regulated" means to be well trained and supplied. It has nothing to do with todays 'regulations'.

 

[marvin martian]

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

You have it backwards. The court upheld the constitution, which is their only job.

 

[berg80]

You have it backwards. The court upheld the constitution, which is their only job.

Breyer Makes Plain The Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights​

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

“Will the Court’s approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloak those outcomes in the language of history?” he ponders, before sketching out his argument that his conservative colleagues have done just that.

Breyer lays out his own list of cases ranging from English precursors to early American laws all the way up through U.S. law in the 20th century. He lists cases that he argues support New York’s licensing scheme, many of which the conservative majority found some reason to reject: “too old,” “too recent,” “did not last long enough,” “applied to too few people,” “enacted for the wrong reasons,” “based on a constitutional rationale that is now impossible to identify,” “not sufficiently analogous,” Breyer reels off.

“At best, the numerous justifications that the Court finds for rejecting historical evidence give judges ample tools to pick their friends out of history’s crowd,” he writes. “At worst, they create a one-way ratchet that will disqualify virtually any ‘representative historical analogue’ and make it nearly impossible to sustain common-sense regulations necessary to our Nation’s safety and security.”

Breyer Underscores Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights

Breyer focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

talkingpointsmemo.com

What is notable is the ease with which the court's liberals shred the ludicrous, anachronistic arguments of the Right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Breyer Makes Plain The Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights​

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

“Will the Court’s approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloak those outcomes in the language of history?” he ponders, before sketching out his argument that his conservative colleagues have done just that.

Breyer lays out his own list of cases ranging from English precursors to early American laws all the way up through U.S. law in the 20th century. He lists cases that he argues support New York’s licensing scheme, many of which the conservative majority found some reason to reject: “too old,” “too recent,” “did not last long enough,” “applied to too few people,” “enacted for the wrong reasons,” “based on a constitutional rationale that is now impossible to identify,” “not sufficiently analogous,” Breyer reels off.

“At best, the numerous justifications that the Court finds for rejecting historical evidence give judges ample tools to pick their friends out of history’s crowd,” he writes. “At worst, they create a one-way ratchet that will disqualify virtually any ‘representative historical analogue’ and make it nearly impossible to sustain common-sense regulations necessary to our Nation’s safety and security.”

Breyer Underscores Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights

Breyer focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

talkingpointsmemo.com

What is notable is the ease with which the court's liberals shred the ludicrous, anachronistic arguments of the Right.

Imagine how different you'd be if you read books.

If you get tired of being a moron.....

 

[Flash]

Breyer Makes Plain The Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights​

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

“Will the Court’s approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloak those outcomes in the language of history?” he ponders, before sketching out his argument that his conservative colleagues have done just that.

Breyer lays out his own list of cases ranging from English precursors to early American laws all the way up through U.S. law in the 20th century. He lists cases that he argues support New York’s licensing scheme, many of which the conservative majority found some reason to reject: “too old,” “too recent,” “did not last long enough,” “applied to too few people,” “enacted for the wrong reasons,” “based on a constitutional rationale that is now impossible to identify,” “not sufficiently analogous,” Breyer reels off.

“At best, the numerous justifications that the Court finds for rejecting historical evidence give judges ample tools to pick their friends out of history’s crowd,” he writes. “At worst, they create a one-way ratchet that will disqualify virtually any ‘representative historical analogue’ and make it nearly impossible to sustain common-sense regulations necessary to our Nation’s safety and security.”

Breyer Underscores Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights

Breyer focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

talkingpointsmemo.com

What is notable is the ease with which the court's liberals shred the ludicrous, anachronistic arguments of the Right.

Alito blew Breyer out of the water!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Alito blew Breyer out of the water!


View attachment 661434

Most people, I believe, make judgements based on how they would react, or behave.

Yet the Democrats have trained their pets to function as though everyone is out to assassinate everyone else.

Kennesaw, Ga. has a law requiring every citizen to be armed....true for years.

And they don't shoot each other.

Democrats lie about everything.

 

[Flash]

Breyer Makes Plain The Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights​

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

“Will the Court’s approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloak those outcomes in the language of history?” he ponders, before sketching out his argument that his conservative colleagues have done just that.

Breyer lays out his own list of cases ranging from English precursors to early American laws all the way up through U.S. law in the 20th century. He lists cases that he argues support New York’s licensing scheme, many of which the conservative majority found some reason to reject: “too old,” “too recent,” “did not last long enough,” “applied to too few people,” “enacted for the wrong reasons,” “based on a constitutional rationale that is now impossible to identify,” “not sufficiently analogous,” Breyer reels off.

“At best, the numerous justifications that the Court finds for rejecting historical evidence give judges ample tools to pick their friends out of history’s crowd,” he writes. “At worst, they create a one-way ratchet that will disqualify virtually any ‘representative historical analogue’ and make it nearly impossible to sustain common-sense regulations necessary to our Nation’s safety and security.”

Breyer Underscores Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights

Breyer focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

talkingpointsmemo.com

What is notable is the ease with which the court's liberals shred the ludicrous, anachronistic arguments of the Right.

For somebody to have completed a law school, had a legal profession and made it to the Supreme Court to not know what the hell "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means is proof that he is dumber than a door knob.

Of course this dufus was appointed by Slick Willy so that explains it.

 

[kyzr]

Keith Olbermann says to just ignore the USSC!! Be careful what you wish for!

"The first step is for a state the 'court' has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling," Olbermann tweeted. "Great. You're a court? Why and how do [you] think you can enforce your rulings?"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Keith Olbermann says to just ignore the USSC!! Be careful what you wish for!

"The first step is for a state the 'court' has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling," Olbermann tweeted. "Great. You're a court? Why and how do [you] think you can enforce your rulings?"

The father of the Democrat Party said the same thing: "....Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that purported to seize Cherokee lands on which gold had been found violated federal treaties. Jackson is famous for having responded: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Although the comment is probably apocryphal, both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision."

The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Court History | PBS

 

[Billy_Bob]

Keith Olbermann says to just ignore the USSC!! Be careful what you wish for!

"The first step is for a state the 'court' has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling," Olbermann tweeted. "Great. You're a court? Why and how do [you] think you can enforce your rulings?"

Bubble idiot is advocating lawless anarchy... He is an idiot. Without laws our nation dies... I hate to say it, but we need to bring back public executions of traitors.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The father of the Democrat Party said the same thing: "....Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that purported to seize Cherokee lands on which gold had been found violated federal treaties. Jackson is famous for having responded: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Although the comment is probably apocryphal, both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision."

The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Court History | PBS

And it resulted in the deaths of these native Americans. It didn't end well for people..