The Supremes have struck down a NY gun law

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

About who can carry guns in public.

[Subdeacon Joe]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-rules-on-second-amendment-concealed-carry-gun-laws-in-nysrpa-v-bruen

 

You can find links to the decision there  

 

 

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

Summary:

<Quote>

[Chantry]

I wandered over to a far left wing board and they all up in arms (pun intended) over the decision.  Of course almost none of them have read the opinion and many think this will result in open carry everywhere and other bizarre ideas.    Am I a bad person for enjoying their misery & anger?

[Subdeacon Joe]

Another take away:

 

SCOTUS EXPRESSLY RULES TWO PART TEST USED BY LOWER COURTS TO UPHOLD ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS, MAGAZINE LIMITS, OTHER RESTRICTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

 

“Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. THE COURT REJECTS THAT TWO-PART APPROACH AS HAVING ONE STEP TOO MANY. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected anyinterest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.”

[Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381]

Love it.

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

Good decision, but it's not over.  The state will make things difficult; how difficult is yet to be determined.

[Capt. R. Hugh Kidnme]

Bravo Zulu for SCOTUS. 

[Blackwater 53393]

Maybe, while they’re at it, they can render a pre-emptive ruling on this “bipartisan”, unconstitutional legislation that’s before the senate now.

[Nostrum Damus SASS #110702]

4 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Another take away:

 

SCOTUS EXPRESSLY RULES TWO PART TEST USED BY LOWER COURTS TO UPHOLD ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS, MAGAZINE LIMITS, OTHER RESTRICTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

 

“Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. THE COURT REJECTS THAT TWO-PART APPROACH AS HAVING ONE STEP TOO MANY. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected anyinterest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.”

This is the MUCH more important aspect of the case.  Everyone (including the NYAG) knew that NY's law was DOA.  It has massive ramifications.

[Subdeacon Joe]

10 minutes ago, Nostrum Damus SASS #110702 said:

This is the MUCH more important aspect of the case.  Everyone (including the NYAG) knew that NY's law was DOA.  It has massive ramifications.

 

As was in the opinion, the 2nd isn't a second-class civil right.  It should, MUST, be afforded the same protections as the other enumerated civil rights.  

I wonder if the Senate will now look at its new batch of anti-civil rights laws and weigh them against this decision.  

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Maybe, while they’re at it, they can render a pre-emptive ruling on this “bipartisan”, unconstitutional legislation that’s before the senate now.

 

That is entering very, VERY, dangerous ground.  Basically it would be dictating to the legislative branch what it may and may not do.  Yes, to some extent all decisions on fundamental rights do that, but for the Court to before hand tell Congress, "You may not pass this bill" is a cure worse than the disease.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

43 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

That is entering very, VERY, dangerous ground.  Basically it would be dictating to the legislative branch what it may and may not do.  Yes, to some extent all decisions on fundamental rights do that, but for the Court to before hand tell Congress, "You may not pass this bill" is a cure worse than the disease.

 

Hopefully most people understand that the Court has neither the power nor the inclination to do any such thing. But you never know what people don't get.

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

Having read the decision, I must say Justice Alito's concurring opinion was much more succinct and convincing.  A fair bit of the rest of the SCOTUS ruling needed lawyer training to understand. 

[Rye Miles #13621]

It’s still hard to BUY a gun in NY from what I understand and this ruling doesn’t address that!

[Buckshot Bob]

You can be assured that NY and all the other states that are violating peoples rights will make the process of legally carrying a firearm as difficult as possible. That said the right to carry movement has been one of the satisfying social changes in my lifetime and I hope the trend continues.

It always amazes me how many government officials wish to control and manipulate the citizens, and that those same government officials keep getting elected 

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

On 6/23/2022 at 9:50 AM, Chantry said:

I wandered over to a far left wing board and they all up in arms (pun intended) over the decision.  Of course almost none of them have read the opinion and many think this will result in open carry everywhere and other bizarre ideas.    Am I a bad person for enjoying their misery & anger?

I am blown away that liberals aren’t celebrating this ruling. What it does is return the fairness in issuing of licenses across the board. It’s been proven without a doubt that “may issue” areas disproportionately affect people of color. I would think that they’d be more supportive 

[Blackwater 53393]

38 minutes ago, El Hombre Sin Nombre said:

I am blown away that liberals aren’t celebrating this ruling. What it does is return the fairness in issuing of licenses across the board. It’s been proven without a doubt that “may issue” areas disproportionately affect people of color. I would think that they’d be more supportive 

These so called liberals are that only in name unless it suits their purpose!!  Their true goal is control!! Control of anything and ANYONE who can possibly oppose them. Those who don’t or can’t fight back are simply stepping stones.

 

It’s like the old saying “there are no atheists in foxholes”!!  Liberals are only liberal when it suits their purpose and when they profit from it!!

[Chantry]

2 hours ago, El Hombre Sin Nombre said:

I am blown away that liberals aren’t celebrating this ruling. What it does is return the fairness in issuing of licenses across the board. It’s been proven without a doubt that “may issue” areas disproportionately affect people of color. I would think that they’d be more supportive 

They aren't liberals (even if they think they are), they are "lefties" and common sense & facts are irrelevant.  They act and react based on feelings and emotions and what they believe.  That it involves guns makes their reactions even worse.  They firmly believe that the average person does not need a gun for self-defense.  Some don't think people should allowed to own a gun at all.  And NOTHING will ever change their "minds".