Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS

[Flash]

The Reichstag Fire?

See, that's how you know it was NOT an "Insurrection"

I'm watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trail.

How come all those BLM/Communists Insurrectionists that did the tremendous destruction in Kenoska not in jail? Including that shithead that attacked Kyle?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trail.
How come all those BLM/Communists Insurrectionists that did the tremendous destruction in Kenoska not in jail? Including that shithead that attacked Kyle?

The same reason Rittenhouse is on trial.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Roberts:
“The idea that you would need a license to exercise a right is unusual with regard to the Bill of Rights,”

 

[Bob Blaylock]

seems BOTH sides are trying to use the same ancient English law to make their cases.

Which seems very odd, given that the whole point of the manner in which this nation was founded was to reject and rebel against English rule.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Alito:
"People with illegal guns are walking around, but ordinary people can't be armed?"

Kavanaugh
"Why isn't it enough to say, 'I live in a high-crime area, and I want to defend myself?"

 

[2aguy]

Roberts:
“The idea that you would need a license to exercise a right is unusual with regard to the Bill of Rights,”

If he wasnt such a moron we would have a really strong court.

 

[2aguy]

Alito:
"People with illegal guns are walking around, but ordinary people can't be armed?"

Kavanaugh
"Why isn't it enough to say, 'I live in a high-crime area, and I want to defend myself?"

Thanks, I am going to listen to the arguments at the courts podcast

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.

The Constitution says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Its the supreme law of the land.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Try to get into your state Capitol with one.

I don't need to go to my state capitol, so it's irrelevant.

 

[danielpalos]

Alito:
"People with illegal guns are walking around, but ordinary people can't be armed?"

Kavanaugh
"Why isn't it enough to say, 'I live in a high-crime area, and I want to defend myself?"

Why is it soo difficult for our legislators to do the job they get paid to do?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Its the supreme law of the land.

It also says well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

But I thought we were just ONE MORE justice away from a conservative majority?

LOL!

Fuck SCOTUS.

Spineless, worthless, commie fuckheads.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It also says well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State.

And because of the existence of a government controlled militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in which to defend themselves from rogue elements of the government, shall not be infringed.

In the interest of accuracy: it says "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state"

 

[danielpalos]

And because of the existence of a government controlled militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in which to defend themselves from rogue elements of the government, shall not be infringed.

In the interest of accuracy: it says "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state"

Only because our State legislators are not doing the job they get paid to do.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Except for when that state doesn't do what you like.............

One could say abortion should be a state by state issue....but

No No No, States should be free to interpret the federal constitution any way they like. Because duh.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Could you imagine the January 6th insurrection if the insurrectionists all had firearms? They were told in advance that they would be arrested if they were armed. I think the Supremes are smart enough to shoot this down (pun intended)

Because of DC gun laws. That's why they left the guns in the car an opted for metal poles and chemical spray.

 

[JGalt]

The title of this thread is incorrect. The consensus seems to point to the SC's ruling supporting the Second Amendment.

Justices’ Questions Suggest New York Gun-Control Law Unlikely to Survive

The Supreme Court Isn’t Gun-Shy Anymore

Supreme Court Considering Challenge To New York Gun Law

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What they did was narrow the question down to the two people who brought the suit as opposed to a general rights question as they should have made their ruling.

So it's going to be a very narrow split ruling at best. States are still going to be allowed to make you get their approval to carry.

Correct.

The may-issue provision of the law will be invalidated, or at least subject to a test to determine if a given regulation manifests as an undue burden.

But laws requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon will remain Constitutional; likewise laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools, courthouses, and police stations.

 

[pknopp]

Correct.

The may-issue provision of the law will be invalidated, or at least subject to a test to determine if a given regulation manifests as an undue burden.

But laws requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon will remain Constitutional; likewise laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools, courthouses, and police stations.

Unfortunately IMO we will be back to the Supreme Court to determine what is an "undue burden" because the court so limits their rulings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is the sort of case to reach the Supremes, that could end up having huge ramifications across the country.
If they rule that New York can refuse to issue concealed permits, then other states will likely get the courage to enact other restrictive laws.

Wrong.

New York is not ‘refusing’ to issue carry permits; residents of the state are authorized to carry concealed weapons when they satisfy the may issue provision.

And even if the Court were to uphold the may issue provision – which it won’t – it won’t ‘embolden’ other states to enact similar laws, the notion fails as a slippery slope fallacy.